There is also evidence that Orthodox missionaries were sent by the church in Alexandria to the Celtic Isles. So they would have been Eastern Orthodox, though not the exact same Eastern Orthodox we know and love today. Saint Olan's Well (Saint Olan the Egyptian) and other monastic beehive cells found throughout the Celtic isles(Ireland, Iona, etc.) look almost exactly like the beehive cells used by desert monastics from Egypt. Also the place names of many towns in Ireland look and are pronounced like the word "desert". The traditions that the early desert missionaries brought to the Celts were used for quite a long time; the use of a hand bell to call the monks to liturgy, the use of the Psalter as a hymnal, ascetical practices, reverence for nature as a gift from God, etc. When the Roman church sent representatives to the British and and Celtic isles, they already found a thriving Christian and monastic culture there. It was St. Cuthbert the eased the Celtic Church into accepting the customs and jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome.
So this August my wife and I will be baptized into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Orthodox church. I will be taking the name of Columba of Iona as my baptismal name.
Joachim good job, please study the Macedonian Orthodox , the Christianity was spread from Macedonia all the way to Russia.. Please visit Ohrid in Macedonia, you will find lots of information.
Don't visit churches in Macedonia because is hérétique church, recognized only by Serbian patriarchy but not Serbian church, so obe day when we get rid of politique figure of patriarh this recognition will be revoked. By the way all other orthodox crurches (except CIA agent in Istanbul) did not recognize Macedonia church buahahaha
Forgive me Lord from blowing my own trumpet but a lot of those Celtic Saints, including Saint Columba, were from my grandad's tribe, Ui Neil of Donegal. Most went to Iona, but I've never been to Ireland. If you're going to have Irish heritage, no better heritage on that windy Island than that famous tribe.
The early Church in Ireland wouldn't play ball with the Roman Church or the Pope (not completely). Rome just couldn't do anything with them for centuries, so they practiced their own unique form of Celtic Christianity.
Until the Pope legitimised the Norman Conquest. Even Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a propaganda piece against the Irish Church and the Normans brought the Monastic traditions of Europe. Ireland's, I believe, were more closer to the Orthodox tradition.
One of the many reasons we Orthodox do not regard Bernard of Clairvaux a saint. That said, both the Celtic and the continental European monastic traditions were birthed in the Egyptian deserts. The only difference, really, is that Celtic monasticism is a direct descendant (Egyptian missionaries) while European (specifically Benedictine) monasticism was first the Egyptian desert tradition that came to Europe by way of St. John Cassian, whose writings and monastic rule had a profound impact on St. Benedict, who adapted and refined it for his own.
@@zyaicob Saint Patrick in particular and his writings, such as confess, and letters to the soldiers of Coroticus express a distinctly trinitarian theology. I don’t know of anyone that writes specifically on Christology or Chalcedon though. Celtic symbols also play heavily on Trinitarian themes. There is also a later, “treaty on the Eucharist,” in the book, “the Celtic Monk (p. 143-155),” records an understanding remarkably consistent to our modern Orthodox Christian understanding of the Eucharist truly being the body and blood of Christ while also remaining as bread and wine. This is contradictory to the Catholic view of the Eucharist where the water and the wine stop being a wafer (bread), and wine, and exist exclusively as human blood/flesh.
Well that Celtic Church appears to have fairly rapidly adopted the Roman method of calculating Easter after the Synod of Whitby, and the _Filioque_ after the Synod of Hatfield, notwithstanding that both those synods were Anglo-Saxon synods to begin with. All the Celts that I have ever met have been Roman Catholic or Protestant.
@@david_porthouse yeah, totally different faith than Celts of the first Millenia. In “The Celtic Monk,” there is a treaty on the Eucharist. It word for word matches Orthodox understanding of the true body and blood of Christ in the elements. This is different than most Protestant denominations, and Catholic transubstancio where they believe that the elements are no longer bread/wine and exclusively body/blood. Modern Celts are mostly apostate on the whole. But among modern celts that represent Catholics/Protestants they have a different theology on the whole than their ancestors which had a remarkably similar theology to that of the hat the Orthodox Church today has never deviated from.
As I understand it, though they were mostly insular, the Church in Ireland still formally fell under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury (who pretty much functioned like a metropolitan of an autonomous archdiocese). And Irish bishops attended the Synod of Whitby, St. Coleman being one of them. One of the main goals of the Synod of Whitby was to conform the dating of Easter to that of Nicea. This dating method came to the British Isles by way of Rome, to which was Archbishop of Canterbury was subject, but it was the one decided upon by the First Ecumenical Council. There were other things that were decided that didn't really have a bearing on doctrine and could have been left well enough alone, and they do expose an anti-Celtic agenda behind the Synod. Nevertheless, there were saints on both sides of the issues, and the Synod overall brought the Church of the British Isles more into conformity with the whole Church, East and West.
@@HickoryDickory86 The Archbishop of Canterbury might have claimed jurisdiction of the whole of Britain and Ireland, but probably did not exercise it that effectively. St Theodore did exercise jurisdiction effectively over the whole of England, as St Bede relates. St Colman came from Ireland but retired to Lindisfarne off the Northumberland coast. Lindisfarne was most definitely in England by that time. Not sure what you mean by an anti-Celtic agenda. There could just as well have been an anti-Angle agenda.
Well, in the light that they weren't present in the region of the RCC and EO. We know they missed the iconoclast controversy. So that kind of kills that. I've seen documentaries saying they were Roman Catholics, Proto Protestant, and now they were Orthodox.
The Celtic Church was not at all "proto-protestant" in that it accepted and maintained Apostolic Succession and ecclesiastical hierarchy. It may have been "protestant" only in the sense that it would have opposed the gross overreach of papal power, since it was very insular and autonomous. It was Catholic _and_ Orthodox in the meaning that each of those words held in the first millennium. It was "catholic" in that it professed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which upholds the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," with "catholic" meaning "universal." It is the one Church, and that Church comprises "every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9). "Orthodox" means "right practice," and it it the name the Eastern Church gave to itself after Rome schismed and began innovating doctrines and practices that had not come down through the ages from the Apostles. The Orthodox preserved the beliefs and practices of the first millennium down to today. So, yes, the Celtic Church was Catholic and Orthodox. It was not, however, _Roman_ Catholic, nor was it _Eastern_ Orthodox. It was an insular, Celtic expression of the Catholic Church of the West during a time when the West itself was still Orthodox. Side note: This is why I love Western-Rite Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy. The West desperately needs (and deserves) to reclaim and practice its own fully Orthodox heritage.
All that I’m saying in this video is that if you read the theologic statements of the Celtic monks, and follow the ecclesiastical hierarchy in how they govern the Celtic church before the Norman invasion, then you have the exact same model that the Orthodox Church still follows. There was only one church for the first millennia with unique liturgical expressions in different parts of the world. The undivided church they were apart of either still exists, or Jesus was a false prophet. I believe that undivided church to be the Orthodox Church which is why I’m apart of it. If you believe otherwise, then I would expect you ti be whatever that is. Peace you and your pursuits.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 There are only a few groups claiming to be the true church in of themselves. They're the dividers. Faith in Christ is what unified Christians in Christ. Not petty institutions all claiming to be the one true church. Will all of the cover ups at work, I'm good on either the RCC or the EO narrative. Big time.
@@BrianRich1689 no church before the last few hundred years claimed that. That’s not what the apostles did in Acts 15 when they joined together for the first apostolic council, that’s not the church you see in the ecumenical councils. You’re making up your own version of history and Christianity. You can’t support those claims with any piece of history without manipulating a lot of facts to do it. I’m good on whatever nonsense you’re into.
Who’s this Cephas guy and why build a church on him? First rock amongst equals? I think the main issue with those drawn to “Orthodoxy” is that it is much more pride based and individualistic rather than truly understand the importance of submission to authority and hierarchy of Gods Church. True Catholics understand that God gives us the leaders we deserve and we don’t freak out over a bad leader we do our job to focus on our own sin and understand that God uses all for good. Internet Orthodox pretend that they’ve been handed down some wisdom from their forefathers but they just repeat narratives they’ve read in books without contemplating openly and honestly the possibility of the Catholic position. They’re hunting for the pope to not be the head of the visible church A lot of new “traditional” Catholics are running from the battle because they dislike the humanity of the pope. Understanding the papacy is a whole spiritual battle but you can’t refute it till you’ve fully considered it as possibly true. I stand on Cephas
And have you fully considered the Orthodox position before calling us prideful and other names? Seems like you can’t live up to your charitable standards.
@@claytonrolfnehring8119 great question. When we think of a general conquering new land do we focus on the individual city states or the capital? Is Alexander the Great giving authority to each city state or is he consolidating those city states into a larger empire that once he controls the capital all authority pours out from there: this was a spiritual conquest. We must think in military terms but spiritual outcomes. The Israelites expected a military leader to overthrow Rome but his kingdom was not of this world. Everyone was busy looking for a material war but there was a war in the realm most can’t see and it caused the temple and Rome to fall at the feet of our lord and his army of simple fisherman. Rejoice! who conquered Rome is the question. Not which other cities were conquered in the process.
@@LightOfAllMankind hi. I’m not attacking I hope you’re willing to consider that I’m commenting on the part of the heart that prevents us from seeing clearly and using pride in the technical sense. I miss my eastern brothers and sisters. I can not eat their bread or drink their wine. But you are welcome to commune with us. I have deeply sought after the truth before accepting the papacy with all its flaws. And I’d love to discuss it. I do understand your perspective as I equally investigated orthodoxy and I see it’s many fruits
@@BryanKirch I hope you are willing to consider that we have also sought after the same thing you have with the same open mind and genuine heart. You did make an assessment on all Orthodox people in your opening statement.
@@Ceile-De if it was neither, then that would imply it was a heretical group outside the church, which is not true. For the “gates of hell to not have prevailed against the church,” then some church built upon the foundation of the anointing that Christ placed upon the Apostles has to be the continuity of the church. Protestants didn’t even exist until the late 1400’s, so that really just leaves the Orthodox and Catholic Papists as possibilities. The Celtic church was part of the wider church, and one of those churches continues as part of the same church. Theologically and throughout most traditions, that seems obvious to me to be the Orthodox Church, hence the video.
He is true in that it was neither. You are incorrect to say it was a heresy. The church in Britain/cymru was there from the beginning. Much to share by the grace of god 🕊️ Heddwch â bendithion
I have read so many theologians of the Roman Church dismiss the existence of the Celtic Church and it's Orthodox beginnings! They disclaim this as myth despite the fact we have the historical event known as The Synod of Whitby!
“Catholic,” in this case is a proper noun. “catholic,” is a common noun that describes the fullness of the Church. “Roman,” and “catholic,” actually still describes the Orthodox Church as the emperor of the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople, and there is no Church today that is the “Roman Catholic” church. The papal church in the Vatican is actually just called the “Catholic Church:” (proper noun).
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 yes papa calls, but the problem is that he does not represent all christians. In the same manner I call myself the most handsome man but girls still don't want to fak with me buahahahaha
How did the Papacy dominate the West why did Western Kings as a whole support the claims of the Papacy? Why did they not fight more vigorously for their National Churches? I fully realize the Papacy gained a lot of power as a result of the French Revolution, and the weakening of Monarchy in Western Europe.
There is also evidence that Orthodox missionaries were sent by the church in Alexandria to the Celtic Isles. So they would have been Eastern Orthodox, though not the exact same Eastern Orthodox we know and love today. Saint Olan's Well (Saint Olan the Egyptian) and other monastic beehive cells found throughout the Celtic isles(Ireland, Iona, etc.) look almost exactly like the beehive cells used by desert monastics from Egypt. Also the place names of many towns in Ireland look and are pronounced like the word "desert". The traditions that the early desert missionaries brought to the Celts were used for quite a long time; the use of a hand bell to call the monks to liturgy, the use of the Psalter as a hymnal, ascetical practices, reverence for nature as a gift from God, etc. When the Roman church sent representatives to the British and and Celtic isles, they already found a thriving Christian and monastic culture there. It was St. Cuthbert the eased the Celtic Church into accepting the customs and jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome.
So this August my wife and I will be baptized into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Orthodox church. I will be taking the name of Columba of Iona as my baptismal name.
Joachim good job, please study the Macedonian Orthodox , the Christianity was spread from Macedonia all the way to Russia.. Please visit Ohrid in Macedonia, you will find lots of information.
All churches in Macedonia are Serbian orthodox churches.
Don't visit churches in Macedonia because is hérétique church, recognized only by Serbian patriarchy but not Serbian church, so obe day when we get rid of politique figure of patriarh this recognition will be revoked. By the way all other orthodox crurches (except CIA agent in Istanbul) did not recognize Macedonia church buahahaha
In the Spirit of Boaz thank you for the information. God grant you Favor
Forgive me Lord from blowing my own trumpet but a lot of those Celtic Saints, including Saint Columba, were from my grandad's tribe, Ui Neil of Donegal. Most went to Iona, but I've never been to Ireland. If you're going to have Irish heritage, no better heritage on that windy Island than that famous tribe.
The early Church in Ireland wouldn't play ball with the Roman Church or the Pope (not completely). Rome just couldn't do anything with them for centuries, so they practiced their own unique form of Celtic Christianity.
Until the Pope legitimised the Norman Conquest. Even Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a propaganda piece against the Irish Church and the Normans brought the Monastic traditions of Europe. Ireland's, I believe, were more closer to the Orthodox tradition.
One of the many reasons we Orthodox do not regard Bernard of Clairvaux a saint.
That said, both the Celtic and the continental European monastic traditions were birthed in the Egyptian deserts. The only difference, really, is that Celtic monasticism is a direct descendant (Egyptian missionaries) while European (specifically Benedictine) monasticism was first the Egyptian desert tradition that came to Europe by way of St. John Cassian, whose writings and monastic rule had a profound impact on St. Benedict, who adapted and refined it for his own.
Did any of the Celtic fathers leave us with writings that expressed their Christology? Do we have any idea which side of Chalcedon they fell on?
@@zyaicob Saint Patrick in particular and his writings, such as confess, and letters to the soldiers of Coroticus express a distinctly trinitarian theology. I don’t know of anyone that writes specifically on Christology or Chalcedon though. Celtic symbols also play heavily on Trinitarian themes. There is also a later, “treaty on the Eucharist,” in the book, “the Celtic Monk (p. 143-155),” records an understanding remarkably consistent to our modern Orthodox Christian understanding of the Eucharist truly being the body and blood of Christ while also remaining as bread and wine. This is contradictory to the Catholic view of the Eucharist where the water and the wine stop being a wafer (bread), and wine, and exist exclusively as human blood/flesh.
Glóir do Dhia!
Is Críost an Rí!
☦️
I go to an episcopal anglican church and I wish we could reunite. As an irish person its the closest thing to western rite I can attend.
Well that Celtic Church appears to have fairly rapidly adopted the Roman method of calculating Easter after the Synod of Whitby, and the _Filioque_ after the Synod of Hatfield, notwithstanding that both those synods were Anglo-Saxon synods to begin with. All the Celts that I have ever met have been Roman Catholic or Protestant.
@@david_porthouse yeah, totally different faith than Celts of the first Millenia. In “The Celtic Monk,” there is a treaty on the Eucharist. It word for word matches Orthodox understanding of the true body and blood of Christ in the elements. This is different than most Protestant denominations, and Catholic transubstancio where they believe that the elements are no longer bread/wine and exclusively body/blood. Modern Celts are mostly apostate on the whole. But among modern celts that represent Catholics/Protestants they have a different theology on the whole than their ancestors which had a remarkably similar theology to that of the hat the Orthodox Church today has never deviated from.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 Sounds like you are just rewriting somebody else's history with an axe to grind.
As I understand it, though they were mostly insular, the Church in Ireland still formally fell under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury (who pretty much functioned like a metropolitan of an autonomous archdiocese). And Irish bishops attended the Synod of Whitby, St. Coleman being one of them.
One of the main goals of the Synod of Whitby was to conform the dating of Easter to that of Nicea. This dating method came to the British Isles by way of Rome, to which was Archbishop of Canterbury was subject, but it was the one decided upon by the First Ecumenical Council.
There were other things that were decided that didn't really have a bearing on doctrine and could have been left well enough alone, and they do expose an anti-Celtic agenda behind the Synod. Nevertheless, there were saints on both sides of the issues, and the Synod overall brought the Church of the British Isles more into conformity with the whole Church, East and West.
@@HickoryDickory86 The Archbishop of Canterbury might have claimed jurisdiction of the whole of Britain and Ireland, but probably did not exercise it that effectively. St Theodore did exercise jurisdiction effectively over the whole of England, as St Bede relates.
St Colman came from Ireland but retired to Lindisfarne off the Northumberland coast. Lindisfarne was most definitely in England by that time.
Not sure what you mean by an anti-Celtic agenda. There could just as well have been an anti-Angle agenda.
Well, in the light that they weren't present in the region of the RCC and EO. We know they missed the iconoclast controversy. So that kind of kills that. I've seen documentaries saying they were Roman Catholics, Proto Protestant, and now they were Orthodox.
The Celtic Church was not at all "proto-protestant" in that it accepted and maintained Apostolic Succession and ecclesiastical hierarchy. It may have been "protestant" only in the sense that it would have opposed the gross overreach of papal power, since it was very insular and autonomous.
It was Catholic _and_ Orthodox in the meaning that each of those words held in the first millennium. It was "catholic" in that it professed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which upholds the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," with "catholic" meaning "universal." It is the one Church, and that Church comprises "every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9).
"Orthodox" means "right practice," and it it the name the Eastern Church gave to itself after Rome schismed and began innovating doctrines and practices that had not come down through the ages from the Apostles. The Orthodox preserved the beliefs and practices of the first millennium down to today.
So, yes, the Celtic Church was Catholic and Orthodox. It was not, however, _Roman_ Catholic, nor was it _Eastern_ Orthodox. It was an insular, Celtic expression of the Catholic Church of the West during a time when the West itself was still Orthodox.
Side note: This is why I love Western-Rite Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy. The West desperately needs (and deserves) to reclaim and practice its own fully Orthodox heritage.
@@HickoryDickory86 That's what I meant.
All that I’m saying in this video is that if you read the theologic statements of the Celtic monks, and follow the ecclesiastical hierarchy in how they govern the Celtic church before the Norman invasion, then you have the exact same model that the Orthodox Church still follows. There was only one church for the first millennia with unique liturgical expressions in different parts of the world. The undivided church they were apart of either still exists, or Jesus was a false prophet. I believe that undivided church to be the Orthodox Church which is why I’m apart of it. If you believe otherwise, then I would expect you ti be whatever that is. Peace you and your pursuits.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 There are only a few groups claiming to be the true church in of themselves. They're the dividers. Faith in Christ is what unified Christians in Christ. Not petty institutions all claiming to be the one true church. Will all of the cover ups at work, I'm good on either the RCC or the EO narrative. Big time.
@@BrianRich1689 no church before the last few hundred years claimed that. That’s not what the apostles did in Acts 15 when they joined together for the first apostolic council, that’s not the church you see in the ecumenical councils. You’re making up your own version of history and Christianity. You can’t support those claims with any piece of history without manipulating a lot of facts to do it. I’m good on whatever nonsense you’re into.
Who’s this Cephas guy and why build a church on him? First rock amongst equals? I think the main issue with those drawn to “Orthodoxy” is that it is much more pride based and individualistic rather than truly understand the importance of submission to authority and hierarchy of Gods Church.
True Catholics understand that God gives us the leaders we deserve and we don’t freak out over a bad leader we do our job to focus on our own sin and understand that God uses all for good. Internet Orthodox pretend that they’ve been handed down some wisdom from their forefathers but they just repeat narratives they’ve read in books without contemplating openly and honestly the possibility of the Catholic position. They’re hunting for the pope to not be the head of the visible church
A lot of new “traditional” Catholics are running from the battle because they dislike the humanity of the pope. Understanding the papacy is a whole spiritual battle but you can’t refute it till you’ve fully considered it as possibly true.
I stand on Cephas
And have you fully considered the Orthodox position before calling us prideful and other names? Seems like you can’t live up to your charitable standards.
What about the other Sees that Peter fathered?
@@claytonrolfnehring8119 great question. When we think of a general conquering new land do we focus on the individual city states or the capital?
Is Alexander the Great giving authority to each city state or is he consolidating those city states into a larger empire that once he controls the capital all authority pours out from there:
this was a spiritual conquest. We must think in military terms but spiritual outcomes. The Israelites expected a military leader to overthrow Rome but his kingdom was not of this world.
Everyone was busy looking for a material war but there was a war in the realm most can’t see and it caused the temple and Rome to fall at the feet of our lord and his army of simple fisherman. Rejoice!
who conquered Rome is the question. Not which other cities were conquered in the process.
@@LightOfAllMankind hi. I’m not attacking I hope you’re willing to consider that I’m commenting on the part of the heart that prevents us from seeing clearly and using pride in the technical sense. I miss my eastern brothers and sisters. I can not eat their bread or drink their wine. But you are welcome to commune with us. I have deeply sought after the truth before accepting the papacy with all its flaws. And I’d love to discuss it. I do understand your perspective as I equally investigated orthodoxy and I see it’s many fruits
@@BryanKirch I hope you are willing to consider that we have also sought after the same thing you have with the same open mind and genuine heart. You did make an assessment on all Orthodox people in your opening statement.
The Gates of Hell is a water filled grotto at the bottom of Mt Herman.
The Culdees
The Celtic church was NEITHER.
@@Ceile-De if it was neither, then that would imply it was a heretical group outside the church, which is not true. For the “gates of hell to not have prevailed against the church,” then some church built upon the foundation of the anointing that Christ placed upon the Apostles has to be the continuity of the church. Protestants didn’t even exist until the late 1400’s, so that really just leaves the Orthodox and Catholic Papists as possibilities. The Celtic church was part of the wider church, and one of those churches continues as part of the same church. Theologically and throughout most traditions, that seems obvious to me to be the Orthodox Church, hence the video.
@@Ceile-De “Neither,” also implies that it wasn’t part of the wider church which is also fase.
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 yes I know how institution worshipers are, you refuse to think outside of it. I wont bother you again. Be blessed.
He is true in that it was neither. You are incorrect to say it was a heresy.
The church in Britain/cymru was there from the beginning.
Much to share by the grace of god 🕊️
Heddwch â bendithion
Neither one. It was an independent ecclessiastical body, Celtic Christianity. ST. Columba of Iona could be a holy reference.
I have read so many theologians of the Roman Church dismiss the existence of the Celtic Church and it's Orthodox beginnings! They disclaim this as myth despite the fact we have the historical event known as The Synod of Whitby!
Don't say "catholique", correct is "roman catholique" aka papist Church
“Catholic,” in this case is a proper noun. “catholic,” is a common noun that describes the fullness of the Church. “Roman,” and “catholic,” actually still describes the Orthodox Church as the emperor of the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople, and there is no Church today that is the “Roman Catholic” church. The papal church in the Vatican is actually just called the “Catholic Church:” (proper noun).
@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 yes papa calls, but the problem is that he does not represent all christians. In the same manner I call myself the most handsome man but girls still don't want to fak with me buahahahaha
@@bezimenkostotebrigovic5149 😂
The Catholic believe, accept, follow and worship Jesus. Any church that does not adore Jesus isn't christianity!
How did the Papacy dominate the West why did Western Kings as a whole support the claims of the Papacy? Why did they not fight more vigorously for their National Churches? I fully realize the Papacy gained a lot of power as a result of the French Revolution, and the weakening of Monarchy in Western Europe.