"The English Church Before It Was Roman" How Orthodox Anglicanism is an Ancient and Patristic Faith
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Did Anglicanism begin with Henry VIII? How did Christianity get to the British Isles? What is Celtic Christianity?
*Update 10/29* Many have asked for book recommendations - I'd recommend "A History of the Church in England" by J. R. H. Moorman - Buy on Amazon: amzn.to/34EALMr
Did Anglicanism begin with Henry VIII? How did Christianity get to the British Isles? What is Celtic Christianity?
On the Feast of St. George (England's Patron Saint) Father Macias outlines a view of Church history that describes the conciliar goals of the English Reformation and the historic authenticity of an Apostolic, Orthodox Anglicanism.
Anglicanism has maintained Catholic apostolic succession, but has also been reformed. A truly unique tradition.
🙏
A unique tradition, but which surprisingly and wonderfully is a real return to the Apostolic roots and the intended progress of the Church of Christ. There is nothing wrong with Anglicanism of the Reformation! Scripture proves this! We also have to hold fast that Reformation principle and from it not depart!
The Truth cannot be reformed, and since the Truth dwells in the Church, then neither can the Church be reformed either
Reformed by a criminal : Henry VIII. He was his own times' Stalin. Tudor times were the epitome of absolute barbarity. One of the greatest misfortunes of all times was the failure of the Spanish Armada to bring back England into Christianity and into the Austrian-Spanish Empire. England's throne belongs to the Spanish Crown.
God hates the traditions of men
You must be born again
Must have relationship
God (& I) HATE ALL MAN MADE RELIGIONS
As a proud Celt and a member of the Church In Wales, its nice to see someone sharing truths about how old our Church is!
Have you researched you family tree, I have started mine and was surprised that my family came from different places I had not expected
@@paulbutterworthbillericay yeah I did a DNA ancestry test, my family is 90% Welsh, 4% English and 6% Norwegian apparently.
Our Celtic links are still strong here in Wales. Celtic saints are remembered in place names, many churches are named after Celtic saints. Saint Winifred’s Well is still a highly visited and revered pilgrim destination for its healing miracles, although appropriated by the Roman church! Still, so be it, it is a Celtic site.
Your priests are invalid
Thank you for this teaching Father. I'm a new Christian, and belong to an Episcopal Church. This history facinates me. God be with you.
You should make a video "The Anglican church before it was gay"
Ouch. But fair.
@@FrSteveMacias in a few hundred years who is going to say "it's always been that way?" We need a greater reformation.
@@FrSteveMacias MAKE THE ANGLICAN CHURCH GREAT AGAIN
@@FrSteveMacias yes please do this type of video, otherwise LGBT will end up imposing their own triumphalism like they do on everything else. St Paul would have approved it. How do you come up with English being Celtic? Anglo Celtic maybe?
Lots of mixing between what we now call Scotland, Wales, England, and Ireland - thanks to different Norman and Viking Conquests.
Thank you for making this video. I was studying Church history, and I had a crisis of faith based on the historical foundations of my denomination. I almost jumped to Roman Catholicism, but this video really gave me pause and it’s making me really examine Anglicanism. The Roman Catholic Papacy is very hard for me to accept, but at the same time most Protestant denominations today have gone off the rails in terms of Church doctrines, and there’s no real solid historical foundation in these denominations. Anglicanism is a viable alternative to Roman Catholicism IMO.
Thank you Father Steve! This video was instrumental in my recent conversion/ confirmation into the Anglican Church. Keep up up the good work.
Did you read the comment above yours? A little correction on father's history lesson. Might be good to read, as this was so instrumental in your conversion.
You`re good with celebrating s0domy?
You should look into Western Orthodoxy, anglicanism unfortunately is just another branch cut off from Papism (RCC). May God guide you home, a beautiful Sarum Rite Liturgy would show you the way.
Hi Father, I'm a recent convert from the Roman Catholic church to the Episcopal Church. I really liked this lecture and found it really informative. Along with theologian Ryan Reeves, your channel has helped educate me further on Anglican theology. Keep up the good work!
What made you convert?
Bad Catholics make good Protestants.
Good Protestants make great Catholics!
@@steven21736 serveral reasons from different beliefs on the Eucharist to not being on board with mandatory clerical celibacy
@@joecool3477 there is no mandatory celibacy in the Catholic Church only in the Latin rite. The catholic and orthodox view of the Eucharist is the one of the early church
Even Roman Catholicism doesn’t have ALL 100% celibate clergy. Some are married. And they are thinking of changing that rule anyway.
This negates itself. The Anglican heritage traces its lineage from the jurisdictions established at the Synod of Whitby following the Roman pope, not the Celtic jurisdictions, and in any case the Celtic jurisdictions were always thought to be under the Roman patriarchate, even if they were not directly governed as the popes did in later years.
I'm learning a lot from your videos, I'm passionate about historic Protestant Christianity and I see how the Anglican Church has preserved many Catholic aspects similar to the Lutheran Church.
Yes! Lot of shared history there. Cranmer went to Germany and was influenced by the Lutherans!
Both wrong
@Daniel Smith The Moravians kinda do that, their theology is the first 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, the 39 Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, and ofc the Creeds. While I find this diversity of doctrine really fascinating, I don't see how this is possible when they all contradict each other
@@DeFyYing - hear hear! These numerous contradictions are what lead to the inevitable fractionalizing of the protestant churches…..the lack of authority and magisterium, coupled with institutional secularization is a recipe for failure.
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 Regarding theological contradictions, most Protestant traditions have a confession of faith which state their doctrine. Lutherans like myself have the Book of Concord, Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession, Continental Reformed have the Heidelberg Catechism and/or the Belgic Confession, Methodists have the 25 Articles, even Baptists technically have theirs (London Baptist Confession for Reformed Baptists, and the Standard Confession for General Baptists). This confession of faith states the belief of that tradition, so it doesn't contradict itself.
However a large swath of American Protestantism is non-denominational evangelicalism which I believe eschews historicity and theology in exchange for "relationship over religion". Christianity is of both the heart AND of the head.
Regarding Church authority, I do agree that some degree of authority is necessary so that chaos does not ensue. However, I personally have some criticisms of the Catholic Church's execution of this in my other reply to you on the other comment thread. And in regards to Church authority over theology, the doctrines of Vatican II are very much different from the rest of Catholic teaching on Hell and salvation, language, and worship like Novus Ordo and versus populum. With the first one the idea of salvation in the proclamation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus to the statements of Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium is significant. Some might drift towards Sedevacantism in opposition towards all of this, but imo doing so seems to undermine the idea of the Church's infallibility (not in an ex cathedra way, but moreso its continuity with Church history as the succession of St Peter from Matthew 16:18).
I'm Anglican and I constantly hear the old trope that I wouldn't have a church at all if Henry VIII didn't want a divorce. They are totally oblivious to the fact that Celtic Christianity existed over 1000 years before Henry VIII.
As a pentecostal protestant I can really agree with you, both restorianism and triumphanism aren't a truly historical view on history of church, most of pentecostals here even when we accept the pentecostalism movement (not the charismatic movement) most are methodist theolical, because Methodists churches were who be in the Chile revival, and Methodism I think it's the most near to anglicanism, John Wesley were an Anglican and we love the church of England where Americas church is mostly from.
God bless you my brothers🙏💙
And looking for the history of the Church I totally agree with you, St Patrick was from the Celtic church, that's historic true
Putting aside the content of the video for a moment, I think it's impressive that this video has over 400 comments and the channel which features it has only about 900 members.
I'd also recommend a book called 'Celtic Christianity' by Ray Simpson which outlines early Christian history in the British Isles, before the Roman Catholic Church took over in AD 597.
🙏
This remains youtube's best video on this subject.
Appreciate it Michael - although I hope not!
@@FrSteveMacias It is common knowledge in the Anglican Church that 1066 was when Papal rule was first established in England under William of Normandy, not 1000 as you said. 1534 was when Henry VIII repudiated Papal rule, not 1533 as you said.
@@johnpolitis3956 Valid. I'm not a member of the ACNA (although I am Anglican), you have to recognize that he's a priest, not an academic or historian. He's obviously doing his best to summarize a large volume of Christian history.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Ok worm your way out of this. At the council of Nicea approximately 300 bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church. In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.” The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.
Established by the extremely evil Constantine
English Church before Adultery is the norm set by the King
I would suggest that the period 680-1014, when England had adopted the Filioque but Rome had not, is the longest period of an arguably non-Roman English Church in ancient history. This may be the opposite of what various fantasists are wanting to hear.
Thanks. From an Orthodox believer. Antiochian Orthodox Churches are found in England dedicated to British Saints and hermits. The British church had links with Constantinople Rome Alexandria Jerusalem and Antioch until the Schism. Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury came from Tarsus, I believe. to reform the Church in England where he died in 690. I think the Church of England can be said to descend in some part from Theodore,s church
I wish that I had an Antiochian congregation in the town I live. The Antiochian seems to be more open to frustrated Roman Catholics like me. I attended in two other places regularly, and was enriched by the experience.I was Chrismated in 97 .
Antioch is my Mother Church too.
@@johnfleming7879 Orthodoxy is not a shelter for frustrated Roman Catholics, rather it's a place for people who want to be Orthodox because they think it's correct, patristic, that the Greeks were the theologically and ecclesiologically correct party in 1054. Etc. Don't use it as a bomb shelter and then keep the beliefs that caused the bombs, we don't want to get bombed either :)
@Johnny Michael yes, Orthodoxy may have its predominant presence in the Levant today. Historically speaking, however, all of Christendom was theologically Orthodox. These ethnic jurisdictions of which you speak are merely just that, jurisdictional. They have no bearing on the liturgical theology, soteriology, etc. of the Orthodox faith. You are merely thinking of the cultural and ethnic expressions of the faith within these regional jurisdictions.
@@charlesmaximus9161 thanks!
You forget the doctrinal differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church! The Orthodox Church never recognized the Papal Church's innovations in the faith! And also the Orthodox Church did not EVER recognize the Papal primacy! For the Eastern Church the Bishop of Rome was first among equals! And at the second Ecumenical Council the Patriarch of Constantinople was recognized equal to the Pope! On the other hand if Henry VIII had got the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon approved by the Pope , England would have probably still been a Roman Catholic country, following all the Papal innovations and heresies!
I’m Western Orthodox and find this absolutely fascinating, especially since you reference Lancelot Andrews 😍
Its look Nice, but....check the primary sources about Patrick that the irish and scottish saints have written, they show that Patrick and other were sent by the pope way before Augustine of Canterbury.
Patrick himself studied in France (see of Arles) and in Italy (see of Rome). "English christianity" was not some independent self teaching church, but members of the orthodox church with particular customs.
Anglicans are not Western Orthodox. We don’t claim to be the “true” church the way you fanatics do. We ordain women and gays so please don’t associate yourselves with us.
Its interesting to me that if you believe in taking a historical perspective you ignore the much longer period when the entire Christian Church was united in the British Isles for hundreds and hundreds of years, in fact 800+ years. Its very interesting how people pick and choose the history that suits their agenda.
Which 800 years are you speaking of?
The Church between the Apostles and Whitby is likely only as much as 600 or so years - but the church was loosely organized among tribal lines of the various germanic people in British Isles. Of this period, our historical information is limited - Bede is a great resource, but a compiler mostly. Some regions are converted - for example the Irish Picts under St. Columba, but that is not the same as saying the entire British Islands were a wholly united church. There is undoubtedly a Christian presence with apostolic origin traceable back through the Celtic Church, but no single institution historically dominated the larger, wider region British Isles until William the Conquerer.
The period between Synod of Whitby and King Alfred which is only ~200 years. Consider that Whitby (7th Century)is the major point in which Roman tradition is first introduced into the English Church, yet the English church remains largely a confederation of churches until the Vikings basically take over all of the Angles, Jutes, and Saxon territories in England and Wales. Under Alfred, the Vikings are deterred and the English church is united as a new "Angul Saxnia" people. While Alfred has a strong allegiance to the Pope of Rome, it did not stay pro-Roman in England for long. Coinciding with the timeline of the Great Schism, the Pope allows the Normans under William the Conquerer to invade and reform the English church. Strangely enough, the Normans (Norse-men, Vikings) claimed the crown based on their historic presence in England prior to Alfred. (This is of course a very simplified summary of the history up until 1100.
From 1100 to Henry I, much of this history will be a back and forth between the Pope and English Crown until the Reformation of Henry VIII. Consider that William II banished Archbishop Anselm for his support of the Pope, who is then brought back by Henry I. Then it is Henry II who fights with Thomas A Becket for his papal loyalty in the 12th century. Then the Magna Carta under the reign of King John comes which earned a papal bull by Pope Innocent III. By the time we get to the reign of Henry VIII in 1509, the only common tradition known by the crown is that of Popes and English Kings fighting over jurisdiction.
Save the short reign of Bloody Mary, the English Church has it single longest history as a Protestant Church from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I to today, which marks out over 450 years.
@@FrSteveMacias wow amazing historical knowledge
@@FrSteveMacias - it may not have been a Roman or Latin rite in Ireland and the British Isles but it was certainly Catholic. Is your position that the early British church was not Catholic but rather its own sect of Christianity?
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 - Catholic in that they were in communion with the Church of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Yet not subordinate to Roman Catholic jurisdiction, tradition, or custom.
@@FrSteveMacias - In full communion with Rome but not subject to the Popes authority? So a type of Sui iuris that isn’t in history? A Sui Iuris that was fully autonomous, a proto anglican church that DEFINITELY did not originate in Roman Catholicism? Is that your thesis?
Why were so many British going to Ireland for religious instruction? Joyce and Cahill document it well in their books and those Irish certainly went out in to Europe beginning in the 6th century, in particular in France. France was certainly under Papal Jurisdiction.
I see what you are attempting and have seen North Irish protestants do the same thing- suggesting there was a proto protestant Church that lived underground and that all the English were part of before during and after the Norman conquest. That this mysterious English Church wasn’t subject to Papal jurisdiction, it was autocephalous, and didn’t get or need authorization from Rome or any of the other Holy Sees. Just simply doesn’t stand up to history sir. Just like the Irish protestants in Antrim, attempting to claim that this autocephalous Irish church of the 5th Century was its own entity that coalesced from the ether by Gods divine command…..yet it was the Romans that first brought Christianity to England, and a probable Romano-Britain in Saint Patrick that brought it to Ireland.
While there is no doubt there was a great deal of autonomy in England and Ireland prior to the Norman conquest, there is also no doubt that the clergy in Britain and Ireland were well aware that the Pope in Rome was head of the church….in fact in the 7th century I believe, a pope sent a delegation to England and Ireland to reel them in as it were…..I’ll research and find that reference. Nonetheless, you assertion isn’t completely without merit but it certainly doesn’t tell the entire story and no there was no proto protestant exclusive autocephalous British church that survived underground for centuries only to come out of the shadows as it were once Henry decided it would be so. (However, the CofE certainly did drive Irish Catholics underground hunted and killed Priests, penal laws, hedgerow masses, etc)
Thank you Fr. Macias! What are aome good books for further reading on thia subject?
Wow! That was EXCELLENT!!!! Thank you so much for taking the time to put that together!
I'm an ex-Romanist baptised into True Orthodoxy in 1994. I know one of the relevant authors Vladimir Moss well and I know he's read all that and more. England was Orthodox before 1066. Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury went out of communion with Rome in 1052. In a somewhat but not entirely separate dispute (reforms including wanting to get rid of clerical celibacy, and also unleavened bread are amongst the issues in addition to papal supremacy) the Apostolic see of Santiago de Compostela (see Father Andrew Philips: Orthodoxy and the Portuguese Tradition), and the rest of Galicia went out of communion with Rome in 1049, remaining so in some areas until 1066 (and even until 1073 in the Coimbra area which went into revolt soon after its conquest by the County of Portugal in 1064).
England, the rest of the British isles, and parts of Iberia (on both sides of the Moorish lines) thus remained in communion with four of the five ancient patriarchates of the Pentarchy established when they were all part of the Roman Empire under Constantine the Great: Constantinople; Antioch; Alexandria and Jerusalem.
In terms of Rome itself and the Patriarchate of the West, a battle was going on between the traditionalists and the "reformers" (with their innovations as previously listed: Roman papal supremacism; the Filioque; clerical celibacy; and unleavened bread), leading to the elections of several rival popes of Rome. The traditionalist claimants remained in communion with the 4 Eastern and Southern (Alexandria (and Africa) Patriarchates. And it was from one of these, Benedict X, that Stigand obtained his pallium of office in 1058.
In terms of the Great East-West Schism of 1054, it's a 4-1 split, in favour of the East.
It's clearly the Roman Papacy of 1054, the Patriarchate of the West, which split off from the other 4 Patriarchates of the Pentarchy, innovating its way into ever more heresies.
The solution will be the repentance of the West and its return to TRUE Orthodox Christianity as the remaining parts of the 24-part (parts 1-12, including Revolution in India and expulsion of the English fulfilled already) Anonymous Prophecy of Mount Athos of 1053, thus ending the Great East-West Schism amidst rejoicing!
Of course, joining oneself to the only True Church is essential for salvation.
England was so geographically far from Rome that it was difficult to control it
An excellent, well researched summary of the history of Anglicanism based on the definitive book by Moorman. The only problems I have are very minor and mainly over the definitions of Celts, Britons, Welsh, etc. For example, St. Patrick came from the west coast of Britain is all we can state definitively. Nobody knows where on that coast exactly, but the latest thinking from very sparse sources is that he probably came from around Carlisle, which is on that west coast, but in northern England. However, it was 'Welsh' in his time and the language of people in that region was indeed an earlier form of Welsh, despite the fact that it's nowhere near Wales according to today's borders. Were the Welsh Celts? According to many historians, the Celts weren't even a distinct group back then; being groups of various Germanic tribes and this notion of Celtic cultures was added centuries later. It's an area of our history that is constantly undergoing revisions, so it's probably best not to make definitive statements about this aspect of early British history. Anyway, it's not a crucial point for this explanation and the point about the earliest Christians in these Isles engaged in their mission before the Roman church began here is still valid. The main point is that the Anglican church is part of the Catholic tradition going back to the earliest times before it was corrupted by various Popes. It wasn't 'invented' to justify Henry VIII's marriage annulment and it gets really tiresome hearing it all the time from those who haven't researched it in context. Thank you for an excellent video.
Your point about Carlisle is interesting, given the time frame it would have been Strathclyde which had welsh cultural connections or celtic connections (even if it's a rather nebulous term) you've given me some food for thought.
As someone recently converted to Greek Orthodoxy I wonder why the Anglican church hasn't made moves to rejoin the orthodox church under the western rite. It seems like there is a lot of agreement between the two in terms of theology and hierarchical views
There’s a lot less agreement than you might think.
What do you mean by rejoin the Orthodox church ? the Anglican Church or(CofE) was never part of the Orthodox church. The Church of England was a creation of the English State under Edward VI and Elizabeth I nothing more & nothing less.
@@robertweidner2480Correct. There are a few areas of disagreements that go quite deep.
The Anglican Church lost apostolic succession after the first generation after The reformation. Joining the Orthodox Church wouldn't be a straight across move simply because the Anglican Church now rejects things like the real presence in the Eucharist among other things. The 39 Articles pretty much spell out the Protestant beliefs of the Anglican Communion.
@@johncox2284 Article 28 rejects transubstantiation not the real presence. As for the Anglican Church losing apostolic succession, that may be your opinion, but it is an opinion that I and the Anglican Church reject. Now what are these other things believed by the Apostles and the Church fathers that the Anglican Church rejects?
I was mormon I am looking into the Episcopal church here in the US. The mormons told me that there was a removal of the word of the lord after the apostles died and there was nothing after that until joseph smith came. I have no idea what happened in history between those dates your talk gives me a better look at what happened between those dates. I'm shookeeth
Episcopal Church has modernized too much.
Wendy:
Our Lord, Jesus, established One Church.
He personally chose twelve men, taught them His plan for our salvation, and ordered the to "...go out and teach all nations...".
They passed His teachings down to us, throughout all the ages.
That Church He established is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@alhilford2345 I am part of the satanic temple I like their motto and the 7 tenants.
Hail Satan!
There's an alternative, The Anglican Church In North America.
I had no idea about church
history but have been reading up. We can learn so much delving into the writings and history of the early church especially the importance of the Eucharist. I read yesterday that that back in the early days a third of all tithes were given to the poor! That's something the modern churches would never dream of doing. I pray you will find the truth and freedom you desire after leaving the Norman church.
This is a great video. I grew up Salvation Army and baptized at a non denominational church I went to youth group at… but left the church for 14 years. Since coming back I’ve been looking to return to a more traditional church. There is an Anglican Church close to me I’m very interested in joining. However I don’t drive and the house my apartment is in may get sold to someone who won’t keep it a rental. I’m praying to the Father that I can stay here and attend the church nearby. Great video with tons of history that I’ve heard similar from Eastern Orthodox videos. Which I also enjoy immensely. Beautiful traditions.
This is great and I love this lesson - that the church has always been diverse etc. But, as someone with family in Wales, I have to say a) everyone always forgets Wales. :( Patrick went from the area we now call Wales to Ireland I believe. b) The Celtic church existed before England was founded. That is to say that England did not exist until the Angles and Saxons had invaded and pushed the Celts to the remote edges of the island of Britain, and founded 'Angle-land' (England) in the late 900's. Don't hate me for saying so!! People can get possessive of their own history, I guess. And I'm totally nit-picking. Not to detract from this great message, there was a church here before Roman Catholicism had even been thought about and our traditions were particular to our land and culture. Christ meets us all where we already are.
Thanks for your comments, are you familiar with the book that you share a name with?
@@FrSteveMacias I wasn't until my friend google searched me and told me this was a book! I'll have to read it.
@@awkwardanglican7474 Bishop Hunter (its author) confirmed me and my wife as Anglicans years ago.
@@FrSteveMacias Wow! Gosh - I hope he won't be upset I took his title! Though I'm sure he is much more widely read than I am watched. Ha! Wouldn't be difficult. Just been looking at the blurb - sounds like a really good read.
There's not much evidence that celts were "pushed".The heavily romanised Britons (of future England) adopted Anglo-Saxon languages as they moved in.
Maybe Brittonic aristocracy were pushed out ,but most modern day english people are predominantly Brythonic with a minority of Anglo-Saxon admixture.
Wow, what a great talk. At school in Durham (UK) I learned about Aidan, Bede Cuthbert and Lindisfarne, but it never connected with the Nicene creed and the Roman church with Augustine. Suddenly it all makes sense and connects up - just a shame that the CofE has strayed so far from its roots in scripture and BCP.
Keep praying for Canterbury and the CofE & there is always the Free Church of England - to which I am associated through the Reformed Episcopal Church. fcofe.org.uk/
Thank you for this interesting teaching. The story that I have heard about Joseph of Arimethea bringing the Christian faith to Britain is that he was a tin trader (hence his wealth) and would travel to Britain to buy tin then bring it back to the Middle East to sell. He shared the Gospell with the British people while there on business.
Around the 16min mark of your presentation you state that British Bishops were at the Council of Nicaea. Can you point me to some sources on this? When looked up, the consensus is that "There is no conclusive evidence that any British bishops attended the Councils of Nicaea (325) or Sardica (343)."
The BBC has fallen very far from its greatness.
Your comment about the age of the earth impels me to request that you speak more about orthodox Anglican vs modern Roman Catholic cosmology. An oft overlooked, but important topic!
Perhaps I should do a follow up discussing the Biblical Chronology of Bede and Archbishop Ussher.
My best friend, Thank you for your hard work in making the video. I enjoyed the good video.
Thanks for visiting
With great respect, I got to say that there was a lot of falsehood in your videos especially in terms of Roman Catholicism
1.The idea that the whole issue regarding the papacy that there had always people who had questioned it doesn't not detract from the papal claims since there was no single doctrine from, baptismal regeneration, the trinity, the deity of Christ or the Mary being the theotokos so by using this argument you could undermine many christian doctrines
2.Thomas Cranmer was not attempting to return the English church back to its Celtic roots but was a traitor who bowed down to King Henry Viii's whimps and caprices he had even recanted for fear of being tried but later reverted back to his ways when he knew that he would be tried anyway implying he was not steadfast in his faith and was willing to compromise for fear of persecution.
3.Pope Gregory the great was not the first to assert papal claims were made from the very begin, Implicitly by Pope Victor I, Pope Leo the great asserted it explicitly in his tome which was read before the council of chalcedon, Damasus and many popes B4 Gregory the great had asserted their papal prerogatives.
4.If your making this video then I am almost sure you know nothing about ecclesiology of the Catholic church, I am sure you know about the eastern catholic churches which are autonomous but in communion with Rome, so this whole idea about national churches is not new to the Catholic church, some of these sui iuris churches have been in communion with Rome far back B4 st Gregory or even st Patrick like the Maronite catholic church named after st Maron.
5.Maximus the confessor speaks of the unique authority of Rome of maintaining the true faith, unbroken faith despite the fact that some may imply that Pope Vigilius and Pope Honorius were material heretics impling that the prerogatives are not hinged on the person himself but rather of his office as promised by our lord Jesus in Mathew 16, so despite the holder of the office the faith remains unblemished.
6.You have also mentioned something false, about Catholicism, we don't not teach as you have asserted that the church depends on one person and one institution inorder to achieve salvation outside of which there is no salvation but rather admits that God works outside the visible bounds of the church and confers grace to those who don't have knowledge of the Catholic church as being the one true church.
7.You also mentioned that churches existed nationally each with their own practices like, their own liturgy, their own calendar for dating feasts but this is not a defeater for the papacy bcz even B4 the schism 1054 that the popes tolerated even today the liturgical rites and customs of other churches and latinisation was and is still greatly condemned, It should however be remembered that during the quartodecimian controversy and subsequently after disputes involved in dating of Easter the Pope's position was vindicated as he had maintained the customs of old plus the Celtic church was not really cut off from the other churches as you have wrongly asserted but were in communion with the Rome and churches in the east, what we see happening in the 600s isn't much of the Rome interferring or trying to assimilate or take over Celtic Christianity infact St Columba' s letter that you have cited does show the relationship between Rome and Christianity in the Celts and British isles, what really made Celtic Christianity different was it's emphasis of monasticism and ascetism that is what made it become different from what was in Gaul which had influenced much of the development Christianity in Ireland
8.John of damascus speaks of st Peter of being the ores that stear the entire church as the president (praedroi) and as the director of the entire church implying supreme jurisdiction
I would write more but I think you get the idea that your view of the Celtic church and Roman church is faulty and would invite you to read more on these subjects bcz sorry to say but this video was rather sloppy and did not take into consideration much of church history and the writings of the church fathers.
Examples?
@@FrSteveMacias Celtic Anglicans?
The Celtic Anglicans theory supposes that Celtic Christianity was established as early as 37 A.D. by “wandering clergy” who followed the Roman trade routes through Gaul (present-day France). Other Celtic-Coptic believers think that the first evangelists came to western Britain by boat from Egypt. The most popular legend says that the apostle Philip, along with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea, took a boat to Marseilles. Mary Magdalene stayed in France and Joseph of Arimathea went on to establish Christianity in Britain. This pre-Nicene, monastic form of Christianity is supposed to have been spiritually and serenely unconcerned with troublesome things such as hierarchy, dogma, and doctrine.
The most important.aspects of “Celtic Orthodoxy” seem to be its British-ness, its antiquity, and its historical independence from Rome. As the web site of the “Holy Celtic Church” claims, “Because of its autonomy and geographical isolation, the Celtic Church remained uniquely uncorrupted by Hellenistic Greek philosophy or Roman jurisprudence.”
Anglicans and the “Celtic Church”
I thought the Celtic Orthodox church was nothing more than one of those eccentric forms of Christianity that inhabit the twilight zones of Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations.
I discovered that an increasing number of mainstream Anglicans believe the Celtic Christianity myth. I was surprised to hear my Anglican and Episcopal friends say, “Of course Anglicanism comes from the Celtic church. It was established long before Rome interfered.” They may not buy into the whole theory of Joseph of Arimathea coming from Scotland or the Coptic monks importing their religion to Wales and Cornwall, but Anglicans have a vague but certain feeling that their church has its roots in a spiritually sublime, ancient church that was always independent of Roman authority.
This theory allows Anglicans to sustain the myth that there are three ancient apostolic churches: Rome, the Orthodox, and themselves. It also helps them to defend their continued independence from Roman authority: “We are descendents of the first British Christians. They existed happily for six hundred years independent of Rome, and we are simply part of that same stream of ancient apostolic Christianity.”
Just the Facts, Ma’am
There is no evidence that Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain. Nor is there any evidence that Coptic monks founded Celtic Christianity. The best the supporters of this theory can do is to point out similarities between Celtic manuscript illumination and Coptic manuscripts. The idea that Celtic Christianity sprang up on its own, independent of Rome, just doesn’t fit the facts.
But we do have clear evidence that Christianity in Britain was, from the first, Roman Christianity. To pin it down we have to look at what happened in the Roman Empire the first few decades after the death of Christ.
Ten years after the Crucifixion of Christ, Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next 350 years, the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies came Roman religions, and one of them was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain, therefore, were Roman Christians.
Christian inscriptions found on crude Roman pottery in Britain dating from this period suggest that the first Christians were poor people-probably Roman soldiers or slaves. The documentary evidence comes from Tertullian and Origen, both writing in the second century. That they knew of the Church in Britain shows that it was sufficiently well founded, large, and connected with the rest of the Church that Catholics in northern Africa knew of it.
The evidence for Roman Christianity in Britain is overwhelming by the time of the fourth century. The first British martyr, St. Alban, was killed for his faith in 304. There must have been a well-established hierarchy because it is recorded that the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln attended the Council of Arles in 314. The British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359.
The archeological evidence for Roman Christianity in this period is found everywhere in Britain. There are Chi-Rho monograms scratched in third century pottery, a ceramic plaque with thePater Noster inscribed on it, mosaic floors with Christian symbols, even an image of Christ. There are remains of Christian chapels, Romano-British Christian burial sites, and the discovery made in 1975 of a fourth-century silver chalice with Christian markings, which shows that Mass was not only celebrated in Roman Britain but celebrated in sumptuous style.
Declaration of Independence?
Anglicans of all stripes cling to the notion of their independent Celtic Christian origins because it seems to ratify their continued independence from Rome: If the ancient British church was independent, then they have a right to continue that tradition. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the first Christians in Britain were Roman. As such they would have looked homeward-Romeward-for their cultural allegiance and their religious allegiance.
Roman British Christians converted some of the locals, but what happened after the Romans withdrew from Britain around the year 410? Did the British church suddenly declare independence from Roman authority? Is this when the independent Celtic church was established?
On the contrary. After the departure of the Roman legions in the early fifth century, British Christians relied even more on their Roman Church contacts. This is the time of the Pelagian heresy, and in 429 a British deacon appealed to the Pope for help combating it. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Germain of Auxerre to go on a mission to Britain, accompanied by St. Patrick. He stayed there and established seminaries. This is clearly an example of not only Rome asserting authority in Britain but also the British church asking for that authority.
A Man on a Mission
Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome.
Even then, the missionary endeavors to Ireland continued from Roman origins and not from Coptic Egypt. St. Patrick, the great apostle of Ireland, was born in Scotland of noble Roman parents. His mother was a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours. His origins and training were all from the Catholic Church, always loyal to Rome. When he went to Ireland in 433 he didn’t discover an “ancient Celtic church” but bloodthirsty Druids who needed converting.
It is true that Patrick’s Celtic church developed in relative isolation from Rome for about 150 years, but in Britain it was soon to be reconciled. In 597, St. Augustine arrived in southeast England, sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Eventually his missionaries encountered Patrick’s missionaries, who had been evangelizing England from the north and west.
When they met, there were some differences of discipline. At the synod of Whitby in 664 the matter was debated, and the Celtic contingent bowed to the authority of St. Peter in the person of the Pope.
Submission to Peter
There is no evidence that the Anglican church was founded on some pure, serene, and ancient apostolic church that existed in Britain for 600 years before the arrival of St. Augustine. On the contrary, it was started by Romans, it converted the locals, and it remained linked to Rome even after the legions departed from Britain. After that, the missionary efforts to the British Isles were of Roman origin.
For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But they remained aware of, and faithful to, the See of Peter. As soon as it had the chance to be physically united with the See of Peter, the Celtic church did so. The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?
There is still a Celtic Orthodox Church. Apparently, it is small but it is real.
Having traveled the road from being a Reformed Christian, to Roman Catholic, I have learned that there are three different "histories" of the church- the Roman version, the Protestant version, and the secular version. It is nearly impossible for a well-meaning layman to navigate these waters- even one who has studied the Bible for many years. I find myself wondering if I crossed the Tiber hastily given the current state of things in Rome. An authoritative list of references would be especially helpful here, father. Thank you for your informative discussion.
So it comes down to a failure of the Celtic Christians to convert the aristocracy? Is that an accurate summary? The one thing that jumps out to me about Church History is how much the Church has been damaged by politics.
Celtic Christians [eg St David, Patrick, etc] were not so much into framework/hierarchy. Deeply mystical. Thus not in a position to argue at Whitby.
The Ancient world did not have our same notion of the individualism.
Corporate identities were very important based on culture or nation or religion - as they are in the Bible too.
Rather than attempting to anachronistically read our current paradigms into history, we ought to recognize the providential hand of the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church - whether is was Constantine the Great or King Alfred or even Henry VIII.
@@FrSteveMacias I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that my understanding of how the church has constantly been corrupted by cozying up with worldly leaders and getting distracted by political power, money, land, etc. has not always ended in tragedy? I'm just a layman and probably way too influenced by my time and place but it seems to me that many small theological differences were coopted by secular princes and turned into big differences simply to serve secular political goals.
We have celtic orthodox church in the isles . Did you guys contact them
I am a anglican from Brazil. Congratulations, father. God bless you! 👏🏻💙
Bless you my new friend!
Do you use english as a liturgucal language?
Mary the mother of Jesus appeared in Bayside New York for two and a half decades starting in 1970 with Jesus and she said no one can call themselves Catholic unless they come under the pope she talks about the separated brethren that's all other churches Protestant orthodox and she said if you're coming back to the true Catholic Church you must accept the truth that you protested against... And Christ is king.
What's your opinion of the "British Orthodox Church"?
Hello father - I’m curious where you were able to find that lectern? I’ve been looking to donate an eagle lectern to my parish but can’t find any satisfactory options. Thank you!
Its been at the parish for about 60 years... No idea!
This is my guy Steve! we went to school together. Even though I'm Catholic its awesome seeing what he is doing.-Ray Perez (Steve, I'm going to DM you would love to chat and catch up!)
Glad you found me! My email is “Steve (at) Stevemacias.com” and I’m now in Los Altos, CA near Palo Alto and Stanford University.
Very nice presentation and all very true. The Norman Conquest was also important with the replacement of English Clergy by French. The French Normans were committed to Papalism and the Roman system.
Yes, and an entire lecture ought to be devoted to this alone!
There is records of Deacon Palladius later to be Bishop of Ireland being commissioned by the Pope to combat Pelagianism. There was a Briton bishop at a church Synod in Gaul in 455. Theodore of Tarsus went from Constantinople all the way to Kent to become Archbishop of Canterbury. The English Church was always a part of the global Church and no act of Parliament can change that
@@alexzadrazil7242 the global church was never beholden to the papacy entirely
@@l21n18 That is true the Church of the East is one such example. As are the Arians, Gnostics Chartars etc.. The idea that Celtic customs somehow marked an independent Christian Church in England and Ireland is historical false. The first Christians in the British Isles were Romans the second conversion was sent by the Pope himself.
And it was never a belief in the early Church that Bishops were merely one Church structure amongst many others as the REC teaches.
@@alexzadrazil7242 - BIG FACTS! Just like thousands of Irish religious went out all over Europe and founded Churches. The British Church and the Irish Church were indeed part of the European Church; different rites, but in full communion with Rome. This is a sincere attempt to erase the fact that the English Church was indeed Catholic.
Thanks for this insightful and clear presentation of this part of church history!
Thanks for the comment and encouragement!
"The Old Celtic Church" is a subject about which I am always open. Thank you, Fr. Steve, for your expose. However, the lesson opened with, what I consider, an unnecessary/unfortunate "tangent"; R.C.s on one hand, JW's and LDS on the other...NOT a way to retain attention of Christians of those sorts who might be surfing.
It may be known that the only translation of the Bible used among LDS is the King James. Being a man "of the discipline" of The Book of Common prayer, I've found the BCP to be as "universal" as the KJB. Observing that the LDS, in certain fundamental ways, tend to be "frustrated Anglicans" (they love high spirituality and beautiful music but Liturgical worship is wanting) some individual Latter-day Saints can "fill the void" by way of the original Church of their revered, often beloved, King James Bible. Show them the Book of Common Prayer. This goes also, in their own right, for R.C.s.
Two of the most blessed and sublime of my religious experiences have been by way of Saturday Evening Prayer, per the BCP, with a fully-participating LDS couple. The other is monthly Noon Prayer with two R.C. friends; one a priest. Our priestly companion agreed to lead Noon Prayer and soon found the task much easier by way of the BCP (ACNA Tradition Language).
One does not have to be an Anglican to use and enjoy the Anglican Book of Common Prayer any more than one has to be an Anglican to receive Holy Communion in an Anglican church...but it helps if one already loves the "Anglican Bible."
Now, thank you for reading my message. The Lord bless and keep St. Paul's Anglican Church in Los Altos, its Rector, and others who serve.
I have a question:
If "Episcopal" is the term used to describe the American branch of the English church, why are there also "Anglican" churches in the United States like your own? Is there a semantic difference between "Episcopal" and "Anglican" with regard to churches in the U.S.?
Episcopalian simply means the church is episcopal, or governed by bishops. The use of the word "Anglican" is to distinguish the Episcopalian bodies/ provinces/ dioceses that are not affiliated with the Episcopal Church or TECUSA due to reasons like liberalism, homosexuality, etc.
For example, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), the Convocations of Anglicans in North America (CANA). There are also bodies that use the word Episcopal yet not part of the TEC for example the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA)
During the independance era, the local Anglican body in the USA wanted to distinguish themselves from the Church of England. They can't use the word Anglican simply because Anglican means "of England". This is why they adopted the word Episcopalian and since then the Episcopal CHurch of the USA is born (formerly called the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA)
This distinction is based on American and English history.
The Church of England (Ecclesia Anglicana) is certainly episcopal (ruled by bishops) and Anglican (of England). But the nomenclature "episcopal" came to America via the Church of Scotland, which in the 17th century deposed the bishops and embraced a radical reformed presbyterian polity. The entire history of the Scottish "nonjuring" bishops is very important to Anglican theology, but the TLDR is that this eventually led to the creation of another "Anglican" Church in Scotland called the "Scottish Episcopal Church."
After the American Revolution, the Church of England had not and would not grant Bishops to the victorious American colonial churches, so Samuel Seabury (Yes, the "Westchester Farmer" Seabury) appealed to the Bishops in Scotland and thus the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States" traces its Episcopal (or Bishop) lineage directly through the Scottish Episcopalians, rather than the English Anglicans.
The deference to the Scottish Episcopal Church can be seen in more than the name, but also in the American Prayerbook, which follows the Scottish rite and theology closer than the English 1662 tradition.
When the Protestant Episcopal Church (USA) began its revision of the Prayerbook in the 1960's and altering/tolerating changes on moral and historical issues - conservative Episcopalians that broke took the name "Anglican" to express that they were not breaking from the Episcopal Church, but returning back to their historic roots. I believe this was first done by Bp. Dees (Anglican Orthodox Church) who helped start our "Anglican" parish in 1968 - at a time when the "Anglican Communion" elsewhere was still rather conservative. Then in the 70's with the Congress of St. Louis, the continuing movements leave the Episcopal Church in large numbers to start many American "Anglican" jurisdictions like the Anglican Catholic Church and Anglican Province of Christ the King, etc.
Then in the 2009, you see the "Anglican realignment" movement with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) bringing more Episcopalians out to form the Anglican Church in North America. (The Nigerian Bishops trace their lineage through the Church of England directly; hence Anglican.) Many of folks in this latests American movement were either Episcopal Dioceses or churches that "realigned" with the conservative African Churches and thus became "Anglican."
@@FrSteveMacias thank you
I saw a video where you said the ACNA was part of the Anglican Communion. Is this a newer development or did I miss-hear you? I've read that the GAFCON represents the majority of the Anglican Communion as well.
ACNA is in full communion with the Church of Nigeria - the largest jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion.
@@FrSteveMacias thanks for the quick response. Btw I'm a former seminarian of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm 50 now and still searching. I feel I may still have a vocation beyond that of laity.
@@FrSteveMacias
Has your church looked into being in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church?
@@news_internationale2035 they are. The only issue I see is the ordination of women as Priests in the ACNA( no bishops are women).
@@Tsalagi978Certain ACNA dioceses allow the ordination of women but not all. The ACNA does not allow for the ordination of female bishops.
So now that there is an adulterer as Supreme Governor of the CofE, according to Scripture, what is gafcon going to do about this?
How is he an adulterer? The sin of the Greeks isn't a sin of infidelity.
Father Macias,
Thank you for this video it is fantasic!
Do you have a list of resources that is available for further research?
I ask these questions with the upmost respect for all the church histories, and apologetics involved. I'm on a journey of research for what is valid church in history. Please do not read any malicious intent as I try to write plainly in this medium limited as it is. I seek Christ, his Church, and his Life in the modern day.
I find alot of RCC and now Orthodox apologists who say that they are the rightful claimants to the historical church back to the Apostles. Protestants generally act as if God forgot to do church until the reformation "fixed" everything.
If one wants an orthodox, authentic, historical church (that wasn't formed last Tuesday over a fight over the color of church carpet) the only options are RCC or an Orthodox.
How can I find more information about the churches of history that are not necessarily RCC or Orthodox in all these places in the world?
protestants fall into teo categories...reformationsits, which hold that the church always existed, and restorationists
I speak as a convinced Catholic. The necessity of joining oneself to apostolic Christianity, and not to a late-coming Protestant sect, is clear to all unbiased observers, Christian or not. It sounds like it’s becoming clear to you too. To convince you of the necessity of communion with the Pope, and dispute the usual Eastern Orthodox talking points about doctrine, unity and the Church Fathers, I would give you to read:
- Fr. Vladimir Soloviev (Russian Orthodox priest), “Russia and the Universal Church”
- Cardinal J.H. Newman (now a Saint), “Essay on the Development of Doctrine”
- Brother Aidan Nichols, O.P., “Rome and the Eastern Churches”
"From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards *Peter's one seat* , and *nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head* .
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm
High reverance for the Queen? OH yes she is the head of the new age Anglican church... My bad. The Anglican church was under the Patriarch of Rome till King Henry couldnt get a divorce & decreed himself & his descendants head of the Anglican church. Its different radically than the ancient Church w/Christ as the center as St Gregory the Great said. I guess the new age Anglicans old school by the 16th AD century or the new age of 1980 or whatever, this just sends me as a Eastern Orthodox Christian into giggles as its parody of reality to the utmost
I must take exception with the repeated confusion between ancient British and English/Anglican. England/Angleland/Anglia did not come into existence until 927 AD. The Angles (who gave their name to the English) did not start to arrive in Britain until the 5th century AD. The CofE was not established until 1534 AD. All this means that Anglicanism can make no claim to have any link to the British church certainly before the 5th century and perhaps justifiably before 1534. St Patrick was a Briton and certainly not English or an Anglican.
Seeing as Christianity arrived in Britain under the Romans, as part of the Roman Empire, the early British church was indeed closely tied to Rome! It was Rome's departure in 410 AD and the invasion of the heathens that drove the wedge between the Roman church and the Celtic church.
Conversely, the Kingdom of Kent was founded by Germanic Jute settlers among them Aethelbert, who were not at all Celtic!
You are missing the point. Roman Catholicism as we know it today did not exist until after Charlemagne and even then the real division occurred in 1054, so prior to that we had a native Orthodox Church in which the later Church of England had roots
@@paulking952 But to call it "orthodox", how is that accurate. Were they calling themselves orthodox? Surely there was one universal Christian church before that time and certainly its connections were more likely closer to Rome than to Byzantium or what would become the orthodox world.
@@gordonblues843 I suppose in theory there was only one church to begin with and this started with Jesus and the Apostles. Then as the church spread certainly initially it would have been Apostolic and that includes the way Christianity came to Ancient Briton. So you could say at that point it was orthodox or right thinking. Even when Augustine came, it was still right thinking or orthodox although by this time Rome was starting to drift from Right thinking. I guess that come the reformation and the split with the Roman Church we have gone back to our orthodox roots. I am no expert but I think Anglicans adopt the Nicene Creed and agree with the 7 ecumenical councils and so fundamentally our view is orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox would say you also need holy tradition and sources of authority but we have these also although they are not always the same as those used in Eastern Orthodoxy. Like I say, I am no expert
@@paulking952Most Anglicans only accept 4 Ecumenical Councils totally and some of 5 and 6. A small minority accept the 7th.
Do you think reformed theology accurately reflects the beliefs/teachings of the first millennium Ancient Church?
If you mean the Reformed Theology of the 39 Articles, then yes, absolutely!
Of course! There's a reason why Reformed Theology has also been referred to as "Augustianism."
I feel like Luther, had he turned East, would have moved Germany etc. into Orthodoxy.So much or Roman thought is of the form of Medievel accretion.
@@johnfleming7879
Yes, I believe a change was needed within the Roman Catholicism of his time. Was a pity he didn't turn toward Orthodoxy instead of "reforming" western Christianity. I suppose it was much harder to contact and learn from Orthodox elders then as compared to modern times.
@@twotetah The theologian of Tübingen made an exchange with patriarch Jeromy II, but it was not fruitful. Afterall, Lutheranism is it own tradition, not the Orthodoxy of the seven Oecumenical Councils.
If what you say is true then where are the monatics in the anglican tradition? If there isnt, it might be nothing more than a story Anglican tells themselves to feel connected to the Celtic Church.
I am an Anglican, and a Monastic. I'm not sure why you think that a lack of Monastics would invalidate a branch of the Church. Would you elaborate on that?
The true Church is that which confesses the belief in Christ and gives the most important Sacraments which are the Baptism and Eucharist.
@@ionutmihailbarta6677 :
The true Church is the Church that Our Lord Jesus Himself established.
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
@@alhilford2345 not necessarily Roman in the sense of being I communion with Rome
PS , with what u see today , is it what was deposited to them ,.... If that reformation was of good , there would b only Lutheran , but the devil always has it ways .... Which he used luther to achieved
That's not true. Something can be "good" but not *all* the good. Luther could have been right on the main issue but failed to grasp other issues. Luther could have been right on justification but wrong on the lord's supper or on the Jews
@@stephenglasse9756 Lutherans do not follow the views and private opinions of Luther, including his deplorable hatred of the Jewish people. Rather, it is only the Lutheran confessions held in the Book of Concord that we hold to be authoritative. Luther and Melanchthon were able to restore the Church back to its Patristic roots, but we do not hold that they were infallible men that we must adhere to all of their individual writings and decisions.
Essentially Luther is not our Protestant Pope
@@DeFyYing I agree with you. I was responding to the guy who said Luther was used by the devil.
I love this teaching. Fr Steven teaches the truth.
This was a good talk, but as Englishman, I wish Americans would understand that British is not the same as English. PLEASE stop conflating British culture with English culture. British culture is English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish culture combined. Best of Brits is not really appropriate for the English national day.
Well we are the best of brits us English so shush
@@calumcain2355 nah
This preacher should find some good history books!
Why would you do that when he has faith?
@@venomvandal5443:
Faith in his own interpretation of Scripture and doctrine for sure, but a teacher should be teaching the truth.
I recommend:
"RELIGION AND THE RISE OF WESTERN CULTURE"
Christopher Dawson, New York, Image Books)
"A HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION"
(William Cobbett, Tan Books)
"THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS"
(Eamon Duffy, Yale University Press)
"FAITH OF THE FATHERS"
(Joseph Pierce, Ignatius Press)
Just for a start.
Hello, Fr. Steve. I am a Roman Catholic, and find interesting your view of the Branch Theory. However, you cannot have one Church with different beliefs on, for instance, the Holy Eucharist, and no common magisterium. Yes, very impaired in the RCC nowadays, but there is a system in place.
Also, St. Patrick was born and grew up to a Roman family.
very good, would just add the fact you missed out on the arrival of the pagan Anglo Saxons in the 4th-5th centuries who after converting to Christianity did not practice a Celtic Christianity
Before 1066 and the Norman invasion, English Church was considered Orthodox and was in unity with Constantinople. Actually, the Roman pope sent Willam the Conqueror to take over England and to install Catholicism. It was a kind of a Crusade. The English king who fought William, Harold Godwinson, is considered a saint and martyr in the Orthodox church, Anglicans should unite again with other Orthodox churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian etc)
Where are you getting your information from?
the english church was not out of communion with rome before 1066, who told you this?
@@alhilford2345 Have a look orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England
Then explain Danes.
@@faintvids7352 thats pretty wank, the kings of England had a good relationship with the popes in the years after east west the schism, the king before Harold was made a saint in the catholic church. Remember 1066 is 12 years after the schism, if the church in England was out of communion with the pope for 12 years we would have ample record, but we dont. This kinda conspiracy is only tenable if you are completely ignorant of english history
Father, please become Orthodox Christian
Hi Fr. Steve, this was a wonderful report. Thank you! Would be great if you could broadcast your whole mass one day. I‘m sure a lot of people would receive from it.
Will do
I celebrate and commune in all churches... catholic, orthodox and anglican. I love celtic christianity and the folk traditions of the people. Not so concerned about the "authority of the hierarchy" but I really enjoyed this lesson😊
The Church that was establish in scripture was never lost. It is any individual or gathering 0f believers that adhere completely to the teachings of the apostles as they are found in scripture. If Peter was the first Roman Catholic then where does he say, "Hail Mary full of grace......" ? Apostle Peter never instructed this and RCs know he didnt. The first gathering in scripture recorded was in an upper room there in the city of Antioch. At this gathering the apostles preached the gospel, many were saved and were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues. Which Roman Catholic church do we see this happening in today?🤔 By the way this goes for any denomination.
The phrase, "Hail Mary, full of grace." is literally a quote from the Angel of the Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:28).
@@FrSteveMacias yes of course, it is Gabriel's greeting to Mary but where in scripture is it used for praying?
Fish on a Friday is inherited from the pagan worship of Dagon the fish god.
@@davidmillward3108 it's okay to eat fish on Good Friday. Everything God made is to be received with thanksgiving 🍽️
No...the English Church WAS Roman. If not, what did Henry VIII and Elizabeth I seperate themselves from?
So This would be Considered Anglican, Western rite orthodoxy?
The primitive and true church of England ('Anglia', because even the name 'anglican' comes from the name of the old roman province) never ceased to be 'roman'=in the sense of being in communion with the church of Rome. The primitive churches were proud to be in communion with the Church of Christ in Rome (not ashamed at all), the see of catholicity and orthodoxy of the one and only Church of Christ under the authority, preaching and marthyrdom of the saints Peter and Paul and their succesors in the office of Peter according to the promise of Christ to him: "You are Peter ('Kefa'=rock in aramaic, grecicized: 'Cephas') and on this Rock ('Kefa'=rock in aramaic, grecicized: 'Cephas') I will build my Church" Matthew 16:18-20; "but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren" Luke 22:32; "So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep" John 21:15-17). Being anglican today it is not to belong to the oldest 'english church' in communion with Rome according to the Holy Will of Christ, but a rebel, late and heretic version founded not by a saint but by a proud and lustful king who killed saints to found his own 'church'. "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name" 1 Corinthians 1:10-15. A bad service has done to Christ and the Unity of His Church the national and ethnic proud of 'orthodox' and protestant 'churches' alike.
This whole concept was repudiated by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) when he rebuked the bishop of Constantinople for attempting to arrogate to himself the title of 'universal bishop'. He insisted that such a position and title are unlawful in the church of Jesus Christ" (William Webster, Roman Catholicism, edited by John Armstrong, page 280, 1994)
Is this church in communion with the eastern groups? I know the eastern and american western rite via Antioch seem to be. But not the orientals. I hope the episcopal church can someday reunite. But the eastern church is still dealing with biases. I really love my Church and its people but I wish we had more icons/ceremony reverence. But a lot of my traditions I personally practice are eastern orthodox christian. But i attend a Episcopal anglican church due to the bigotry I've experienced at eastern churches unfortunately.
Anglican Church began by King Henry viii after Luther protestian split.
But u will agree tat today Anglicanism is more catholic in liturgy than any Celtic ,? In facts Anglicanism sides more to catholic than it is to celtic? Pls , today , can u pinpoint any Anglican stuff that is Celtic ?
St George is not England's patron saint, but the Protector of England. If you are going to go back into history like this, then you need to start getting it right. St Peter would appear to have been the original patron saint, being a fisherman.
@@david_porthouse - Encyclopedia Britannica: “He is the patron saint of England and of Georgia and is venerated as one of the 14 Auxiliary Saints (Holy Helpers)” 🐸 AcTuALly 🙃
Before the crusades, nobody in England had heard of St George, yet they were paying Peter’s pence. St Cuthbert was patron of the royal House of Wessex. If you want to be a historian then you need to consider other possibilities.
@@FrSteveMacias St George was unknown in England before the crusades. Where does Peter's pence come from? Who did King Alfred pray to before Edington? You should know the answers to questions like these if you want to talk about English history.
Hi Father. Father Paul Thompson here from Omaha Nebraska. A great and compelling talk. I’d like to chat with you sometime.
What's the doctrine and dogma of REC? Are they the as those which Sts. Columba, Bridget of Kildare, Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, David of Wales?
Fr. Steve, I didn’t think believing in an old earth was a doctrinal issue. I thought there was quite a bit of room for different beliefs there?
Age of the Earth is doctrinal issue when it relates to a historical Adam and Christ's redemption of mankind.
Anglicans have a long historical of defending a Biblical Chronology from the Venerable Bede to Archbishop Ussher.
Fr. Steve Macias I see. So one could believe in an “old earth” and even 100,000 years of human existence as long as one still holds to a literal Adam and Eve? I think this is what NT Wright believes.
Thanks for the video! I'm an Anglican as well, but what are your thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy and how it fits in with this theological history?
The book by Father Andrew Stephen Damick, "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" is excellent to show the history of the Church and all its history.
Anglican and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology are very similar, but Anglicanism is also blessed to inherit the Western theological heritage of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Anselm of Canterbury - whose influence are clearly seen in our formularies and prayerbook.
@@FrSteveMacias Thanks for the response Father Steve!
@@greenhaven-podcast Eastern Orthodoxy is the true form of Christianity
@@evanstavropoulos2993 😊🙏❤️☦️
Good source for presby on understanding the REC?
Celtic is a Healthy Church that Creat revival. Before the Roman Catholic theology.
And for centuries co-existing with our brothers from Rome!
In Matthew 16 Jesus promises Peter alone the keys.
In Luke 22 the apostles ask who is the greatest among them and Jesus reveals Peter as the leader explaining that Peter is the servant of servants which is the greatest role among the 12. In Luke 22 Jesus reveals that Satan demands of All the apostles- but prays for Peter alone and singularly that Peter's faith not fail.
In the Gospel of John again Jesus tasks Peter with guiding the entire flock: young and old.
In the book of Acts we see Peter, though an imperfect man, interpret scriptures to the 12, and speak with the gift of infallibility just as he did in Matthew 16.
Peter's role is not one of vainglory... but a gift of God to the Church.
His office is where the buck stops on dividing matters... and from his office alone the keys are held to bind and loose. That's the significance of the Holy See of Rome. The keys are significant as they're prefigured in Isaiah 22 from which Jesus quoted nearly ver batim in Matthew 16.
Peter is the prime minister to the King... his office succeeds to another just as Isaiah 22 implies, and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church on earth.
This is the visible sign on earth of unity and under the protection of truth... to be united to the foundation Jesus himself laid. A part of that we agree is scripture... scripture points us to an Authoritative Church on earth, in union with Rome.
You lost me at "the age of the earth". Are you saying you think the earth is only 6,000 years old? Please say that you aren't saying that.
Google Anglican Archbishop James Ussher’s Biblical chronology.
@@FrSteveMacias Thank you, but I don't need to do that. Knowing the approximate century in which he lived and wrote is sufficient. I'm sure he also believed the Earth was the center of the solar system.
@@corym8358 Not true. A Heliocentric view in the 17th century didn’t conflict. A notable example is Kepler, a contemporary of Ussher, who held the same view as Ussher. But that’s a different topic.
@@FrSteveMacias Oh my God you’re one of those
The earth we occupy is around 6,000 years old but there was a world before that. Genesis 1 actually reads "In A beginning..."
The waters were already there to be hovered over. There was a previous flood that destroyed the fallen angels.
Thank you for this! A wonderful recounting of our Anglican heritage. God bless you! From: Fr. Dan Kinkead, St. Andrew's Nashville
Bless Fr. Dan - would love to visit and worship with you some time!
So why ain't u Celtic in liturgy , rather than the catholic Church?
Anglicanism is judoeohristianity and revolution church
Triumphalism? It's makes no sense to me as an Anglican, but it's understandable in light of the Oxford Movement and arguably even numbers of Anglicans coming to the faith from Roman Catholicism. Thus they don't want to talk about the Reformation's great benefits to Christianity. In addition, I'm suspicious that those who have hopes for unity with Rome seem to be grounded in Protestants giving up their faith and traditions.
Why is it understandable? I imagine if they’re coming from Roman Catholicism they must agree with some aspects of the reformation.what’s with giving up traditions here?
Good morning, I have a question: exist a Celtic Church in Europe?
I am a Christian without a Church and I would like to find a ancient Church. Thank you.
Celtic Anglicans?
The Celtic Anglicans theory supposes that Celtic Christianity was established as early as 37 A.D. by “wandering clergy” who followed the Roman trade routes through Gaul (present-day France). Other Celtic-Coptic believers think that the first evangelists came to western Britain by boat from Egypt. The most popular legend says that the apostle Philip, along with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea, took a boat to Marseilles. Mary Magdalene stayed in France and Joseph of Arimathea went on to establish Christianity in Britain. This pre-Nicene, monastic form of Christianity is supposed to have been spiritually and serenely unconcerned with troublesome things such as hierarchy, dogma, and doctrine.
The most important.aspects of “Celtic Orthodoxy” seem to be its British-ness, its antiquity, and its historical independence from Rome. As the web site of the “Holy Celtic Church” claims, “Because of its autonomy and geographical isolation, the Celtic Church remained uniquely uncorrupted by Hellenistic Greek philosophy or Roman jurisprudence.”
Anglicans and the “Celtic Church”
I thought the Celtic Orthodox church was nothing more than one of those eccentric forms of Christianity that inhabit the twilight zones of Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations.
I discovered that an increasing number of mainstream Anglicans believe the Celtic Christianity myth. I was surprised to hear my Anglican and Episcopal friends say, “Of course Anglicanism comes from the Celtic church. It was established long before Rome interfered.” They may not buy into the whole theory of Joseph of Arimathea coming from Scotland or the Coptic monks importing their religion to Wales and Cornwall, but Anglicans have a vague but certain feeling that their church has its roots in a spiritually sublime, ancient church that was always independent of Roman authority.
This theory allows Anglicans to sustain the myth that there are three ancient apostolic churches: Rome, the Orthodox, and themselves. It also helps them to defend their continued independence from Roman authority: “We are descendents of the first British Christians. They existed happily for six hundred years independent of Rome, and we are simply part of that same stream of ancient apostolic Christianity.”
Just the Facts, Ma’am
There is no evidence that Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain. Nor is there any evidence that Coptic monks founded Celtic Christianity. The best the supporters of this theory can do is to point out similarities between Celtic manuscript illumination and Coptic manuscripts. The idea that Celtic Christianity sprang up on its own, independent of Rome, just doesn’t fit the facts.
But we do have clear evidence that Christianity in Britain was, from the first, Roman Christianity. To pin it down we have to look at what happened in the Roman Empire the first few decades after the death of Christ.
Ten years after the Crucifixion of Christ, Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next 350 years, the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies came Roman religions, and one of them was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain, therefore, were Roman Christians.
Christian inscriptions found on crude Roman pottery in Britain dating from this period suggest that the first Christians were poor people-probably Roman soldiers or slaves. The documentary evidence comes from Tertullian and Origen, both writing in the second century. That they knew of the Church in Britain shows that it was sufficiently well founded, large, and connected with the rest of the Church that Catholics in northern Africa knew of it.
The evidence for Roman Christianity in Britain is overwhelming by the time of the fourth century. The first British martyr, St. Alban, was killed for his faith in 304. There must have been a well-established hierarchy because it is recorded that the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln attended the Council of Arles in 314. The British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359.
The archeological evidence for Roman Christianity in this period is found everywhere in Britain. There are Chi-Rho monograms scratched in third century pottery, a ceramic plaque with thePater Noster inscribed on it, mosaic floors with Christian symbols, even an image of Christ. There are remains of Christian chapels, Romano-British Christian burial sites, and the discovery made in 1975 of a fourth-century silver chalice with Christian markings, which shows that Mass was not only celebrated in Roman Britain but celebrated in sumptuous style.
Declaration of Independence?
Anglicans of all stripes cling to the notion of their independent Celtic Christian origins because it seems to ratify their continued independence from Rome: If the ancient British church was independent, then they have a right to continue that tradition. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the first Christians in Britain were Roman. As such they would have looked homeward-Romeward-for their cultural allegiance and their religious allegiance.
Roman British Christians converted some of the locals, but what happened after the Romans withdrew from Britain around the year 410? Did the British church suddenly declare independence from Roman authority? Is this when the independent Celtic church was established?
On the contrary. After the departure of the Roman legions in the early fifth century, British Christians relied even more on their Roman Church contacts. This is the time of the Pelagian heresy, and in 429 a British deacon appealed to the Pope for help combating it. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Germain of Auxerre to go on a mission to Britain, accompanied by St. Patrick. He stayed there and established seminaries. This is clearly an example of not only Rome asserting authority in Britain but also the British church asking for that authority.
A Man on a Mission
Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome.
Even then, the missionary endeavors to Ireland continued from Roman origins and not from Coptic Egypt. St. Patrick, the great apostle of Ireland, was born in Scotland of noble Roman parents. His mother was a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours. His origins and training were all from the Catholic Church, always loyal to Rome. When he went to Ireland in 433 he didn’t discover an “ancient Celtic church” but bloodthirsty Druids who needed converting.
It is true that Patrick’s Celtic church developed in relative isolation from Rome for about 150 years, but in Britain it was soon to be reconciled. In 597, St. Augustine arrived in southeast England, sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Eventually his missionaries encountered Patrick’s missionaries, who had been evangelizing England from the north and west.
When they met, there were some differences of discipline. At the synod of Whitby in 664 the matter was debated, and the Celtic contingent bowed to the authority of St. Peter in the person of the Pope.
Submission to Peter
There is no evidence that the Anglican church was founded on some pure, serene, and ancient apostolic church that existed in Britain for 600 years before the arrival of St. Augustine. On the contrary, it was started by Romans, it converted the locals, and it remained linked to Rome even after the legions departed from Britain. After that, the missionary efforts to the British Isles were of Roman origin.
For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But they remained aware of, and faithful to, the See of Peter. As soon as it had the chance to be physically united with the See of Peter, the Celtic church did so. The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?
Love this from Polynesia 💯💯❣️
Was there women ordination and same sex marriage back then?
The Jurisdiction where I am a priest - The Reformed Episcopal Church has a male-only priesthood and affirms traditional marriage only. (recus.org)
@@FrSteveMacias so your point is you are the valid successor of the celtic church? Have you got that unbroken apostolic succesion from that ancient church? By the way, the notion you are peddling that the celtic church is in opposition or totally independent from the western church was a hoax that has already been debunked by many peer reviewed historical researches at present.
The point of this video is to explain that the Church in England did not derive their historic apostolic authority from Rome or its (later) ultramontanist claims, but previously had a valid Apostolic Line as Rome herself concedes at Whitby. The details of the Synod of Whitby in the 7th century, as discussed in the video, are not debated by the Roman Church.
Where's your analysis of the Council of Whitby??!
Did the ancient Celtic Church hold to 7 Sacraments or two?
No such thing as a Celtic Church, but there were Christians who happened to belong to some of the Celtic tribes, and, since these Christians were also Catholics, they most certainly did have the seven Sacraments.
Celtic monasticism spread to Ireland and Northern England, and Saint Columba founded the monastery at Iona in 565 AD.
In 585 AD Saint Columbanus founded an abbey at Luxeuil, Burgundy.
❤
Is there still hope for Orthodox Anglicans in the TEC? My parish seems like a unicorn these days in the Episcopal Church: both conservative and high church. The continuing Anglican movement is attractive but I don’t want to leave my parish
You should leave and join the Continuing Anglican Movement.
I'm in the same boat. My episcopal church is more conservative and anglocatholic than the ACNA. If I'm gonna leave I'd rather just go to Rome. I'm already a fake catholic, why be a fake anglican?
Celtic Anglicans?
The Celtic Anglicans theory supposes that Celtic Christianity was established as early as 37 A.D. by “wandering clergy” who followed the Roman trade routes through Gaul (present-day France). Other Celtic-Coptic believers think that the first evangelists came to western Britain by boat from Egypt. The most popular legend says that the apostle Philip, along with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea, took a boat to Marseilles. Mary Magdalene stayed in France and Joseph of Arimathea went on to establish Christianity in Britain. This pre-Nicene, monastic form of Christianity is supposed to have been spiritually and serenely unconcerned with troublesome things such as hierarchy, dogma, and doctrine.
The most important.aspects of “Celtic Orthodoxy” seem to be its British-ness, its antiquity, and its historical independence from Rome. As the web site of the “Holy Celtic Church” claims, “Because of its autonomy and geographical isolation, the Celtic Church remained uniquely uncorrupted by Hellenistic Greek philosophy or Roman jurisprudence.”
Anglicans and the “Celtic Church”
I thought the Celtic Orthodox church was nothing more than one of those eccentric forms of Christianity that inhabit the twilight zones of Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations.
I discovered that an increasing number of mainstream Anglicans believe the Celtic Christianity myth. I was surprised to hear my Anglican and Episcopal friends say, “Of course Anglicanism comes from the Celtic church. It was established long before Rome interfered.” They may not buy into the whole theory of Joseph of Arimathea coming from Scotland or the Coptic monks importing their religion to Wales and Cornwall, but Anglicans have a vague but certain feeling that their church has its roots in a spiritually sublime, ancient church that was always independent of Roman authority.
This theory allows Anglicans to sustain the myth that there are three ancient apostolic churches: Rome, the Orthodox, and themselves. It also helps them to defend their continued independence from Roman authority: “We are descendents of the first British Christians. They existed happily for six hundred years independent of Rome, and we are simply part of that same stream of ancient apostolic Christianity.”
Just the Facts, Ma’am
There is no evidence that Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain. Nor is there any evidence that Coptic monks founded Celtic Christianity. The best the supporters of this theory can do is to point out similarities between Celtic manuscript illumination and Coptic manuscripts. The idea that Celtic Christianity sprang up on its own, independent of Rome, just doesn’t fit the facts.
But we do have clear evidence that Christianity in Britain was, from the first, Roman Christianity. To pin it down we have to look at what happened in the Roman Empire the first few decades after the death of Christ.
Ten years after the Crucifixion of Christ, Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next 350 years, the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies came Roman religions, and one of them was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain, therefore, were Roman Christians.
Christian inscriptions found on crude Roman pottery in Britain dating from this period suggest that the first Christians were poor people-probably Roman soldiers or slaves. The documentary evidence comes from Tertullian and Origen, both writing in the second century. That they knew of the Church in Britain shows that it was sufficiently well founded, large, and connected with the rest of the Church that Catholics in northern Africa knew of it.
The evidence for Roman Christianity in Britain is overwhelming by the time of the fourth century. The first British martyr, St. Alban, was killed for his faith in 304. There must have been a well-established hierarchy because it is recorded that the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln attended the Council of Arles in 314. The British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359.
The archeological evidence for Roman Christianity in this period is found everywhere in Britain. There are Chi-Rho monograms scratched in third century pottery, a ceramic plaque with thePater Noster inscribed on it, mosaic floors with Christian symbols, even an image of Christ. There are remains of Christian chapels, Romano-British Christian burial sites, and the discovery made in 1975 of a fourth-century silver chalice with Christian markings, which shows that Mass was not only celebrated in Roman Britain but celebrated in sumptuous style.
Declaration of Independence?
Anglicans of all stripes cling to the notion of their independent Celtic Christian origins because it seems to ratify their continued independence from Rome: If the ancient British church was independent, then they have a right to continue that tradition. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the first Christians in Britain were Roman. As such they would have looked homeward-Romeward-for their cultural allegiance and their religious allegiance.
Roman British Christians converted some of the locals, but what happened after the Romans withdrew from Britain around the year 410? Did the British church suddenly declare independence from Roman authority? Is this when the independent Celtic church was established?
On the contrary. After the departure of the Roman legions in the early fifth century, British Christians relied even more on their Roman Church contacts. This is the time of the Pelagian heresy, and in 429 a British deacon appealed to the Pope for help combating it. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Germain of Auxerre to go on a mission to Britain, accompanied by St. Patrick. He stayed there and established seminaries. This is clearly an example of not only Rome asserting authority in Britain but also the British church asking for that authority.
A Man on a Mission
Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome.
Even then, the missionary endeavors to Ireland continued from Roman origins and not from Coptic Egypt. St. Patrick, the great apostle of Ireland, was born in Scotland of noble Roman parents. His mother was a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours. His origins and training were all from the Catholic Church, always loyal to Rome. When he went to Ireland in 433 he didn’t discover an “ancient Celtic church” but bloodthirsty Druids who needed converting.
It is true that Patrick’s Celtic church developed in relative isolation from Rome for about 150 years, but in Britain it was soon to be reconciled. In 597, St. Augustine arrived in southeast England, sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Eventually his missionaries encountered Patrick’s missionaries, who had been evangelizing England from the north and west.
When they met, there were some differences of discipline. At the synod of Whitby in 664 the matter was debated, and the Celtic contingent bowed to the authority of St. Peter in the person of the Pope.
Submission to Peter
There is no evidence that the Anglican church was founded on some pure, serene, and ancient apostolic church that existed in Britain for 600 years before the arrival of St. Augustine. On the contrary, it was started by Romans, it converted the locals, and it remained linked to Rome even after the legions departed from Britain. After that, the missionary efforts to the British Isles were of Roman origin.
For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But they remained aware of, and faithful to, the See of Peter. As soon as it had the chance to be physically united with the See of Peter, the Celtic church did so. The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?
Here is my question ...WOULD U B HERE TALKING THESE , WHICH I FOUND WITH LOTS LOTS OF ERRORS .,.....IF THE POPE ARNOLD HENRYS DEMAND ....?
According to St Bede, the English Church became Roman once everybody accepted the authority of St Theodore, of happy memory. Saints like Benedict Biscop and Bede were the original ultramontanists. It was St Theodore who introduced the Filioque in 680, and this was included in the 39 Articles of the breakaway Church of England. I'm not sure what "Orthodox Anglicanism" is supposed to consist of. Aren't you just making it up?
There was no reformation in England because they already spoke the Hebrew language