|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: 'Celtic' Christianity
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
After a visit to skellig michael I was left wondering where the rather soppy sentimental version of 'celtic' christianity came from. See, here 'celtic christianity' tends to be rather sober. It sees all of creation as sacred and in the past hasn't seen the need top develop and create sacred sites and buildings as all creation is now God's cathedral, so to speak. So sites like skellig michael, which some would have considered to be uninhabitable, are touched by the grace of the gospel.
However, these ideas seem to have become very sentimental, with some rather odd ideas about creation. Is it a 'celtic' christianity for city dwellers?
[ 01. January 2015, 07:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
"Celtic" Christianity is mostly made-up sentimental pap. The genuine Celtic early Christians were largely the same as other Christians of the period anywhere else.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
If by 'Celtic' we are talking about the Orthodox form of Christianity in the British Isles prior to Augustine then it doesn't bear much resemblance to SOME of the Celtic stuff we see now.
However, if people are interested in embracing the missional models, rigourous prayer routines, embrace of mysticism, pilgrimage, religious community and evangelism then it may have a lot to offer. I see some of that through the writings of people such as Ray Simpson, but some of the stuff is just silly.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Custard, I would agree with you and that was part of the point I was making (except maybe that they don't appear to believe in sacred sites or buildings and there is a slightly odd integration of magic and myth with the Gospel that we might gawp at today). But that sickly sentimentality has never really existed in early Christian Ireland - and certainly is not present in any early writings. So where has it come from and why is it produced?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
If by 'Celtic' we are talking about the Orthodox form of Christianity in the British Isles prior to Augustine then it doesn't bear much resemblance to SOME of the Celtic stuff we see now.
I was referring to 'celtic christianity' in the sense of it being Christian - long before 'Orthodoxy' was even a twinkle in the first patriarch's eye
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
IMO its linked to the long-standing English tendency to use the 'Celtic fringe' as sort of foil or mirror for their own society, sentimentalising or demonising it in the process. In the 19th century the supposedly poor, lazy Celts were the antithesis of modern industrial England. Now the supposedly spiritual, nature-loving Celts are the antithesis of modern, industrial England. Whats changed is how the English perceive themselves.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
If by 'Celtic' we are talking about the Orthodox form of Christianity in the British Isles prior to Augustine then it doesn't bear much resemblance to SOME of the Celtic stuff we see now.
I was referring to 'celtic christianity' in the sense of it being Christian - long before 'Orthodoxy' was even a twinkle in the first patriarch's eye
well, there was no christianity before there was Orthodoxy. so that's kind of a strange thing to say.
but as for the Celts, they were in communion with Byzantium before being forced to be in communion with Rome, I think it what the earlier poster was talking about. However, as I understand it, the Western (non Roman) form of christanity did differ somehwat from that practiced in the East. but that seems to depend on whose research one reads.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
If by 'Celtic' we are talking about the Orthodox form of Christianity in the British Isles prior to Augustine then it doesn't bear much resemblance to SOME of the Celtic stuff we see now.
I was referring to 'celtic christianity' in the sense of it being Christian - long before 'Orthodoxy' was even a twinkle in the first patriarch's eye
well, there was no christianity before there was Orthodoxy. so that's kind of a strange thing to say.
but as for the Celts, they were in communion with Byzantium before being forced to be in communion with Rome, I think it what the earlier poster was talking about. However, as I understand it, the Western (non Roman) form of christanity did differ somehwat from that practiced in the East. but that seems to depend on whose research one reads.
Yes - that is what I meant. The surviving liturgy, art styles, tonsure and other things all point to a more Eastern form of Christianity.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
well, there was no christianity before there was Orthodoxy. so that's kind of a strange thing to say.
but as for the Celts, they were in communion with Byzantium before being forced to be in communion with Rome, I think it what the earlier poster was talking about. However, as I understand it, the Western (non Roman) form of christanity did differ somehwat from that practiced in the East. but that seems to depend on whose research one reads.
Can you say who has written on this subject? All I have ever read has only ever suggested that irish Christianity was a very independent entity from the rest of Europe and Byzantium, and was only subdued by Rome much later during the infamous 21 abbot's affair.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
I find anglican versions of celtic Christianity a little weird, given that various studies
(Historical, archeological, genetic etc.) point to the likelihood that the early germanic settlers (angles,saxons,jutes et al)practiced "ethnic cleansing".
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I find anglican versions of celtic Christianity a little weird, given that various studies
(Historical, archeological, genetic etc.) point to the likelihood that the early germanic settlers (angles,saxons,jutes et al)practiced "ethnic cleansing".
Of course if you believe some people even the Irish aren't really Celts ![[Biased]](wink.gif) IIRC its been argued that a relatively small number of Celtic settlers brought their language and culture to Ireland without significantly displacing the much larger pre-Celtic population. And 'Celt' was always a pretty loose category anyway.
[ 04. February 2010, 18:50: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
but as for the Celts, they were in communion with Byzantium before being forced to be in communion with Rome.
Could you expand on this? Rome and Byzantium were in communion with each other until 1054, by which time AIUI most of the distinctives of Irish Christianity had disappeared.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia (OK, it's Wikipedia, but it does have references, and it corresponds to what I've read on the subject): quote:
It is easy to exaggerate the cohesiveness of the Celtic Christian communities. Scholars have long recognised that the term "Celtic Church" is simply inappropriate to describe Christianity among Celtic-speaking peoples, since this would imply a notion of unity, or a self-identifying entity, that simply did not exist. As Patrick Wormald explained, “One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed.” Celtic-speaking areas were part of Latin Christendom as a whole, wherein a significant degree of liturgical and structural variation existed, along with a collective veneration of the Bishop of Rome that was no less intense in Celtic areas.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Now the supposedly spiritual, nature-loving Celts are the antithesis of modern, industrial England. Whats changed is how the English perceive themselves.
Possibly because 'modern, industrial England' is now neither, so much as post-modern, post-industrial. We need escape from the crisis, but not a radical one hence the invention of so-called "Celtic" religion. Which is not to say that some examples of it do not contain a grain of truth, or are less authentic than modern Western Christianity.
A good post, Yerevan.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually there is no real distinction between Celtic and Saxon Christianity. Northumbria the Saxon kingdom stretched all the way to Galloway and the Forth. Scotland's earliest Christian Saints are in Galloway preceding Columba by at least 100 years there are certainly fifth century Christian Relics there. Whithorn has similar but I don't know what to google, in fact Whithorn is the only place in Scotland with earlier Christian remains. Aidan might well have not being going to a solely pagan country when he set off for Lindisfarne but one where Christianity had been practised for some time.
Where did the Christians to Galloway come from? Well almost anywhere, they could have come from Cumbria, Isle of Man or Ireland. This is the part of Scotland where you can see into five Kingdoms, the fifth being heaven.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
"Celtic" is an almost meaningless term in this context. There were some distinctive features of Irish Christianity well into the Middle Ages that created tensions with Rome, and that might have caused Ireland to align more with Byzantium if geography had favored that (the date of Easter, the tonsure, attitudes toward clerical celibacy etc.). One major point was that Irish bishops were relatively weak, because there were few Irish cities (and those very small). While Christianity in the Roman empire was largely an urban religion, Ireland was almost entirely rural. As a consequence the powerful churchmen were abbots, and monasticism dominated the medieval Irish church much more than it did the rest of the Western church. Rome was perplexed by the relative powerlessness of bishops and kept trying to right the political balance. Monasticism was important in the East for different reasons, but there is at least a superficial parallel.
I think the appeal of "Celtic Christianity" is that Celtic culture is seen (mostly through the sentimental haze of literary invention) as more eco-friendly, feminist, and tolerant, in contrast with the domineering, patriarchal, dogmatic image of traditional churches (whether that's deserved or not).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Yes, the early Christianity of Ireland, Scotland, and Anglo-Saxon England were just as varied as Christianity was across Europe at that time. Today we look at the Latin Church through the lens of the Counter-Reformation, but back then there were any number of local variations, from the Mozarabic Rite of Spain to the monasticism of Ireland to the Eastern affinities of Venice. Or the Ambrosian Rite in Florence and vicinity, for that mater.
Claims of "Celtic Christianity" like to turn a blind eye to a millennium of church history. It's pseudo-historic revisionist romantic clap-trap.
The descendents of "Celtic Christanity" today include the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, and the Church of Scotland. In the UCCan we'll be voting on a doctrinal remit (to clear up other doctrinal statements) this year, according to the provisions of the Barrier Act, 1690 as received through the Basis of Union. Presbyterian? Yes. Comes to us directly from Scotland? You bet. Anything to do with this phoney "Celtic Christianity"? Nope. But it is living history and the tread is a straight one right back to the Old Sod.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I find anglican versions of celtic Christianity a little weird, given that various studies (Historical, archeological, genetic etc.) point to the likelihood that the early germanic settlers (angles,saxons,jutes et al)practiced "ethnic cleansing".
My understanding is that the older theory of a violent displacement is being displaced by a theory of a more gradual mingling of cultures and peaceful co-existence. But I only know what I read about that in third-hand sources.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
One major point was that Irish bishops were relatively weak, because there were few Irish cities (and those very small).
And divorce and polygamy were both permitted, in a concession to pre-Christian Irish culture.
There's also the long and interesting history of Church of Ireland claims to be the true heir to early Irish Christianity. Not to mention the claims of other Irish Protestants....I once read a hilarously article by Ian Paisley arguing that St. Patrick was really a Free Presbyterian. Maybe Celtic Christianity appeals now because its both ancient (conveying a sense of rootedness) and apparently uncontentious (supposedly pre-dating both Catholicism & Protestantism).
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually there is no real distinction between Celtic and Saxon Christianity. Northumbria the Saxon kingdom stretched all the way to Galloway and the Forth. Scotland's earliest Christian Saints are in Galloway preceding Columba by at least 100 years there are certainly fifth century Christian Relics there. Whithorn has similar but I don't know what to google, in fact Whithorn is the only place in Scotland with earlier Christian remains. Aidan might well have not being going to a solely pagan country when he set off for Lindisfarne but one where Christianity had been practised for some time.
Where did the Christians to Galloway come from? Well almost anywhere, they could have come from Cumbria, Isle of Man or Ireland. This is the part of Scotland where you can see into five Kingdoms, the fifth being heaven.
Jengie
I believe that Galloway was part of Hen Gogledd, or Old North Wales. Old South Wales is Cornwall...though this is from memory. Christianity was quite strong in Welsh speaking areas, it seems, as well as areas that had been colonised by the Romans. When the Roman Army left and the Saxons invaded, there would likely have been a remnant of the Romans left behind....this remnant would likely have been Christian.
It seems to me that the Church grows best under persecution....I'm am sure that there would have been persecution from the Saxons and their ilk.
This is conjecture.
Rob.
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
I too find the marketing of Celtic Christianity odd. We seem to have made something cuddly and sentimental that was often very hard. The privations of the ealy celtic hermits were a conscious echo of the early desert fathers. St Cuthbert up to his neck in the cold Northumbrian high tide is hardly a cuddly, warm image is it?
How Celtic Christianity has been re-imagined and marketed is about speaking to our present needs. It gives an anchor for a 'green' spirituality and we imagine it to be non-hierarchical. It is almost as though this is an 'innocent' religion before the 'fall' of big bad institutional religion.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I find anglican versions of celtic Christianity a little weird, given that various studies (Historical, archeological, genetic etc.) point to the likelihood that the early germanic settlers (angles,saxons,jutes et al)practiced "ethnic cleansing".
My understanding is that the older theory of a violent displacement is being displaced by a theory of a more gradual mingling of cultures and peaceful co-existence. But I only know what I read about that in third-hand sources.
Linguistically, OE and ME have very few gaelic words, though I read somewhere that english grammar might have been influenced by gaelic. I read that a few years ago, genetic researchers concluded that the genetic profile of english people in the south of england were almost identical to folks in holland and schleswig-holstein.
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
My understanding is that the older theory of a violent displacement is being displaced by a theory of a more gradual mingling of cultures and peaceful co-existence. But I only know what I read about that in third-hand sources. [/qb]
Linguistically, OE and ME have very few gaelic words, though I read somewhere that english grammar might have been influenced by gaelic. I read that a few years ago, genetic researchers concluded that the genetic profile of english people in the south of england were almost identical to folks in holland and schleswig-holstein. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Now that is strange. I was under the impression the the genetic profile of the english people in the south of england were almost identical to the southern scots, and that the danes had a more significant genetic influence than the saxons. Furthermore there is at least one publication on the Anglo-Celtic roots of English.
Personally I don't believe the myth of the English.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
I once worked with a supposed guru of 'celtic Spirituality' who said to me 'I woke up one morning and realised it was all pseudo-mystical cr*p' but I notice he's written two more books on it since! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
St David regarded himself as simply a Catholic priest, and would have thought it bizarre to celebrate Mass in any other language than Latin, while the famous Easter controversy 'settled' at the Synod of Whitby was no more than some Christians hanging on to a dating for Easter decreed by a previous pope instead of embracing a dating for Easter decreed by a current pope! Liturgically we know almost nothing reliable about worship at that period, so attempts to 'revive a celtic style of worship' are pure fantasy.
Having been around the block for a few years now, I wonder if this is just a re-run of the 'franciscan fashion' - there was a period in the 1970's when it was ecclesiastically 'hip' to wander around in open-toed sandals and be gooey about birds and bunnies, while quietly ditching the self-denying Christ-centred simplicity which seems to me to be the heart of real Franciscan spirituality.
Call me an old cynic if you like, but I suspect that quite a lot of our modern 'celtic stuff' would be dismissed as sentimental rubbish or dangerous syncretism if we were to preach it to a congregation of 5th century Christians.
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Personally I don't believe the myth of the English.
Exactly. My understanding was that it was a politically driven myth rather than hard science.
I don't think we have any idea how to distinguish "Celtic" and "Saxon" genetic legacies. Europe is such an inbred population to start with compared with the cradle of humankind (Africa).
And I don't think one can substantiate genocide from linguistics.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
This discussion reminds me a little of similar discussions I have heard within pagan communities.
A person with desire for an emergent (or re-emergent) spiritual path tries to place a historical label on it, to give it a pedigree, to root it in a tradition and so to give it legitimacy; they are concerned to follow and advocate this spiritual path, but don't really know (or often care) about its historical accuracy. But then a person who has a clue, and has looked into the history, shows that it's all bunkum. The two stare blankly at each other for a bit, then flounce off.
So Wiccans, seeking an intuitive, feminine, earth-centred, non-hierarchical and non-dogmatic spirituality, which speaks to the fears and aspirations of a certain type of middle class person in late Western post-industrial societies, claim that their spiritual practices have their roots in pre-Christian northern European religions, continued underground through medieval witchcraft to the present day. Then a paleo-pagan, who is concerned about historical accuracy, will point out that the religion of the pre-Christian celts is largely unknown to us, but was certainly hierarchical and sacerdotal to a degree likely to be unacceptable to Wiccans, while pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon and Norse religions contained a harsh and unforgiving warrior ethic which is unlikely to appeal to a vegetarian pacifist Wiccan. If the historicist is particularly unkind, they might also point out that Wicca was essentially "made up" by a few people in the twentieth century - people like Margaret Murray and Gerald Gardner.
Those who advocate "Celtic Christianity" are, if you like, "Christian Wiccans", seeking an intuitive, feminine, earth-centred mode of Christian expression. Those who expose the reality of "Christianity in Celtic countries before the Synod of Whitby" as harsh and austere are spoiling their fun in the name of historical truth. Ultimately, we need different names for different things. "Neo-Celtic Christianity" and "Paleo-Celtic Christianity", perhaps?
Don't get me wrong, I like Wiccans and I admire Neo-Celtic Christians; both are, in my view, attractive spiritual parths. It's just that their claims to historical legitimacy (and, in the case of Wiccans at least, internal consistency) are rather laughable.
[ 05. February 2010, 06:56: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
I think we need to distinguish between historical liturgucal/spiritual claims (such as referred to above) and what we can interpret historically. I think the term British Church is a better term, when recognised at the term used for the Gaelic and Brythonic settlers, and the enculturalisation by some of the Saxons (but not, generally, the Danes).
We should also recognise the common movement (and wars) between the two Islands (now Ireland and Britain), and especially the influenc eof Irish monastic practice (which seems influenced by Eastern monasticism).
We can look at what exists in terms of writings (e.g. Book of Kells, Lindisfarne Gospels, The Stowe (Lorrha) Missal) and other documents (e.g. Bede). It seems clear that: 1. there wasn't a common 'celtic' liturgy or ecclesiology; 2. that ecclesiastical practices (e.g. Consecration, Ordination, structure etc) differed in the British Isles from other parts of Europe; 3. that links Eastern practices were evident (and that they did differ from Western); 4. That the spirituality was of a rigorous and ascetic character; 5. That priestly celibacy was common but not compulsory; 6. That monastic communities were central to church structures, and to mission.
I think beyond this everything else is conjecture.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
originally posted by oferyas:
quote:
I once worked with a supposed guru of 'celtic Spirituality' who said to me 'I woke up one morning and realised it was all pseudo-mystical cr*p' but I notice he's written two more books on it since!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Yes, and it says something about it when 'celtic christianity' hasn't really taken off in Ireland!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks ianjmatt. I'm not quite sure whether the OP and other responses are referring to any specific current Christian communities or writings.
We're friends of the Northumbria community, headed by the Baptist minister Rev Roy Searle (a previous President of the Bapist Union in the UK) and have also attended worship at the Aidan and Hilda community, headed by Rev Ray Simpson, an Anglican priest and author who we knew first in Norfolk when he headed a large ecumenical church centre. If folks are thinking about the work and faith expression of these particularly communities, then I'm a bit pushed to understand where the words "sloppy" and "sentimental pap" might come in. Either about the community leaders or ethos.
But maybe you're all thinking about something else?
[ 05. February 2010, 07:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Celtic Christianity was certainly a harsh and austere thing, very unlike its harp-playing, home-weave-wearing modern reinvention. Monastic rules of the 6th century contain helpful advice on spiritual discipline such as standing up to your neck in a freezing lake, or "let your genuflections be till your knees bleed". Their teaching was rigorously Trinitarian and, far from being tree-huggers, there is plenty of literature to suggest that the Celtic Christians saw demons in every wood and lake.
There is, as has been said, plenty of evidence to suggest that the Church in Ireland and Scotland (and later in Northumbria) retained Eastern traditions and missed out on the changes in Western practice from the early fifth century onward. The most famous and obvious was the date of Easter. The style of monasticism, too, is more like the missionary monasticism of Russia 500 years later than the settled communities that Benedict was beginning to found in the West. It was the monks who were the frontiersmen of the Church, as King Oswald knew well when he invited the Iona monks to evangelise the kingdom of Northumbria. It was a rough, basic life, and those who led it must often have been close to freezing, starving, or both. I doubt many of today's "Celtic Christians" would have survived ten minutes.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess the real historical controversy surrounds the nature of the church in the UK prior to the Synod of Whitby. My own reading is that the post Reformation protestant view of the distinctives (between Ionan liturgical, monastic and outreach practices and Catholic practices as authorised by Rome), was hardened in support of a classic protestant nonconformist view that Catholic control and order won out against Ionan "wildness" (e.g the wild goose symbol for the Holy Spirit). The kind of story which is music to the ears of wild nonconformists everywhere!
My own reading is that there probably were some interesting distinctives but there was undoubtedly a great deal of overlap. What is true is that a major outcome of Whitby was the moving of the episcopal seat for Northumbria from Lindisfarne to York which looks like a major transfer of control and authority away from the locals. Ah well, as us North-Easterners would observe, nothing new about that. We know we're not to be trusted!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I find anglican versions of celtic Christianity a little weird, given that various studies (Historical, archeological, genetic etc.) point to the likelihood that the early germanic settlers (angles,saxons,jutes et al)practiced "ethnic cleansing".
My understanding is that the older theory of a violent displacement is being displaced by a theory of a more gradual mingling of cultures and peaceful co-existence. But I only know what I read about that in third-hand sources.
Linguistically, OE and ME have very few gaelic words, though I read somewhere that english grammar might have been influenced by gaelic. I read that a few years ago, genetic researchers concluded that the genetic profile of english people in the south of england were almost identical to folks in holland and schleswig-holstein.
I have to say I think mdijon is right on this one, CA.
Here is an article for you (link).
Concepts such as "English" and "Celtic" are largely post-hoc constructs. So far as genetics is concerned, those of us with paler-coloured skins in these islands find our closest relatives (genetically speaking of course) in NW France and NW Spain.
There certainly has been a cottage industry in fabricating hypothetical past scenarios concerning dreadful holocausts of ethnic cleansing, but the rather more mundane explanation of political domination seems rather more likely to be indicated, at least judging by the evidence we have.
It does of course mean that the descriptor "Anglo-Saxon" is pretty devoid of meaning except perhaps in respect of socio-political matters.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that much that is written about 'Celtic' christianity is pure conjecture,with many different christian groups tending to see things,from their own point of view.Presbyterians here in Scotland sometimes present the Celtic church as a model of non Roman christianity and one of the posters indicates that some in the Church of Ireland see themselves as the true heirs of the Celtic tradition.
Catholics ,of course, see the Celtic church as following one of the many rites and traditions which were established all over Europe, spreading before the 'centralisation' due to easier communications of the liturgy which really only came about after the Council of Trent.
We are going back to a time when communications were not what they are now and when there were many fewer books.
Just as fashionistas try to follow the fashions of Paris,or languages tried to approximate themselves to that of the royal court,so did Christians in the West anyway gradually try to follow the practices of Rome,but that took many centuries.
The Celtic liturgies tended to be influenced by the liturgy of Milan,itself influenced by the liturgies of the East,but the Roman liturgy itself took borrowings from many different sources.
The argument about the date of Easter is sometimes seen as the powerful Romans imposing their will on the much better informed Celts,but this argument took several centuries before there was a more or less uniform date for the celebration of Easter in the West,those who celebrated it on the 14th day of Nisan,those who celebrated it on the day of the Passover and those who celebrated it on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
Even today within the range of those christians in communion with the Roman See there are still differences.Most Byzantine rite Catholics celebrate Easter at the same time as their Orthodox 'brethren'.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
but as for the Celts, they were in communion with Byzantium before being forced to be in communion with Rome, I think it what the earlier poster was talking about.
eh?
They were all in communion together. The supposedly "Celtic" church was from the 4th to the 8th century - before the split between Rome and Constantinople.
They had some practices that differed from Rome - but Rome and Constantinople agreed on them. As others have said it was really just one of the local varieties of Christianity, no more different from Rome than the practices of Spain or Gaul or southern Germany would have been.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Linguistically, OE and ME have very few gaelic words
It would be British (i.e. Old Welsh) words that were relevant, not Gaelic. But yes, there are very few, other than place names and place-name elements.
Very significantly, there are no ecclesiastical terms in English from Welsh - the oldest ones seem to have come into English from Gothic or Old German, later ones direct from latin.
quote:
I read that a few years ago, genetic researchers concluded that the genetic profile of english people in the south of england were almost identical to folks in holland and schleswig-holstein.
More that about half of the reccent ancestry of the east of England seems to come from North Germany/Jutland/ Baltic coast and about half shared with Ireland - well make that just under half because about 10% is shared with the rest of Europe and 1-2% with just about anybody in the world.
And, FWIW its pretty clear that the original colonisers of Ireland came from Iberia - there are some genes that are common in northern Spain and Portugal and the British Isles but nowhere else. One particular Y-chromosome variant is about 90% among Basques, 40% of northeren Spain, 70% in Ireland (but up to 98% in some western parts) and 40-50% in Britain - more common in the west, less so in the east.
quote:
Now that is strange. I was under the impression the the genetic profile of the english people in the south of england were almost identical to the southern scots, and that the danes had a more significant genetic influence than the saxons.
Yes - but the distribution is more east-west than north-south, in Scotland as well as England. And the Y-chromosome and mDNA markers they use are the same for Danes and Saxons anyway so you can;t tell one from the other. (YOU can spot ancestry from northern Scandinavia because some of the genes common there are common in north or central Asia but not other parts of Western Europe)
quote:
Furthermore there is at least one publication on the Anglo-Celtic roots of English.
Its on an intellectual level with scientology, young-earth creationism, anti-vaccine campaigners and Was God an Astronaut?. Old English was almost identical to Old Saxon and close enough to Old Franconian to be mutually intelligible, and not very different from Old Norse or Old High German - they share most of their vocabulary and the syntax is very very similar. If those languages were related to the Celtic branch of Indo-European the join is way back in the past.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
My own reading is that the post Reformation protestant view of the distinctives (between Ionan liturgical, monastic and outreach practices and Catholic practices as authorised by Rome), was hardened in support of a classic protestant nonconformist view that Catholic control and order won out against Ionan "wildness" (e.g the wild goose symbol for the Holy Spirit). The kind of story which is music to the ears of wild nonconformists everywhere!
There is fairly good evidence though that the Irish church (if it could be called a church - communities would probably be a better word) was not exactly well behaved. Saint Declan was a very independent well-heeled man of the decie who was quite determined to do his own thing. Patrick was also essentially an itinerent preacher. Brigid, if she existed at all, was possibly Ireland's first Bishop with a terrible fondness for beer. The monastic communities were continually bothered by Rome in the early period and syncretism was to become a major issue. St Columba had a notoriously difficult relationship with Rome and with everyone for that matter. He was quite a grumpy old bugger by all accounts, who in one of his more notorious hissy fits threw the book of kells into a puddle and almost destroyed one of the greatest illuminated manuscripts in Christendom. He was also a schismatic and doesn't appear to have felt any pangs of guilt at never being reconciled to those he had spats with - Finian and Fintan to name but two. By the early medieval period Rome seems to have been kept rather busy by Ireland, constantly checking up on her unusual ways, but very soon things would change. Bangor Abbey was brought into line through fixed appointments and Youghal (the richest benefice in Europe at that time) was watched with great care. Youghal sent out more crusaders from its port than anywhere else in Europe. Thousands travelled from other parts of Europe to leave from Youghal. Now I could be wrong, but I tend to read that as an issue of political control and an attempt to placate a particular unruly christian community. Rome was also to flood Ireland with extra Bishops, especially when 200 years before the reformation in Europe, the irish church looked like it might be on the cusp of its own particular reformation.
Now all this might sound odd, but there are still the remnants of this today. Some may say its a product of being at the arse end of Europe; others may argue its about being part of a country where lawlessness and rebellion is applauded. But you could argue that it's simply because it has been an eternal part of the culture of the church on this island. Take for instance the kerfuffle here when the document 'One Bread, One Body' came out. The church here was very deeply divided over this. Many priests continued to choose to ignore it and went on concelebrating with C of I neighbours - in some instances, female priests. They continued to receive at one anothers' altars too. Take the example of celebacy - there are many, many priests, particularly in rural Ireland who are effectively married, and many who have children. They haven't hit the headlines because their Bishops turn a blind eye and their congregations give them their support. There is a long history of unruliness here and of not toeing the line!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Thurible, your link is rather good, but I can't help but suspect is has a particular agenda to pedal as the Lorra Stowe missal (in the original text at least) has no mention of the Pope anywhere in it, which is in rather stark contrast to the Bangor Antiphonary which mentions the Pope repeatedly.
[ 05. February 2010, 13:17: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
Ken is right that the Gaelic and Brythonic influence on Old English appears to have been very slight. The only Celtic words that survived in much of England were place-names, and the original meaning was forgotten. Take Pendle Hill, which was something like 'Y Pen' ('The Head', 'The hill') in Brythonic. It became 'Penhyll' in Old English , so 'Hill-hill', later corrupted to 'Pendle' which then needed a further 'Hill' to make it clear'. So 'Hill-hill-hill'!
Bredon on the Hill is similar, as 'bre-', 'bryn' is another Brythonic word for hill, so 'Hill hill on the hill'!
The placename element 'eccles', as in 'Eccleshill', is usually taken to mean a surviving (into the OE period) Romano-British church (Mod. Welsh 'eglwys'), and is more common in areas that remained 'Celtic' late, like Lancashire.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
Perhaps a tangent but I think this is relevant to the OP
quote:
Origionally poster by Fletcher Christian
Is it a 'celtic' christianity for city dwellers? quote:
Perhaps, but I think it is more likely that it is a Christianity for Northerners. I find some aspects of both paleo & neo celtic christianity really helpful. I don't think it is because I am sentimental, but because I'm from the same geographical area.
For instance, I find Brendan's prayer 'Shall I abandon, O King of mysteries, the soft comforts of home? Shall I turn my back on my native land, and turn my face towards the sea? ....O Christ, will You help me on the wild waves?' incredibly challenging (& moving) because I am often near the coast, & understand the risks Brendan was taking. Hence I can (somewhat) understand the trust involved. Similarly the prayers for snooding the fire: I can imagine life in winter without fire. The imagery is old, but accessible to me in ways that much of the biblical imagery isn't.
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Take Pendle Hill, which was something like 'Y Pen' ('The Head', 'The hill') in Brythonic. It became 'Penhyll' in Old English , so 'Hill-hill', later corrupted to 'Pendle' which then needed a further 'Hill' to make it clear'. So 'Hill-hill-hill'!
Bredon on the Hill is similar, as 'bre-', 'bryn' is another Brythonic word for hill, so 'Hill hill on the hill'!
Which is why Tolkien, who knew that perfectly well, has a place called Bree Hill in LOTR. A philologists in-joke. As are nearby Archet & Chetwood, Staddle & Combe.
"Combe" or "Coomb" is the normal place name for a valley in the Downland of SE England, and if you actually live there its just about productive - I can say "lets walk down into that combe" though I probably wouldn't say it anywhere other than on the South Downs. And "Combe" is of course nothing but the Welsh word for a valley, which they spell phonetically as Cwm (but it sounds the same - there is no "b" in it and its a long "oo" not a short "o".
The Downs are of course hills and I can call a hill a "down" (but only in the south-east corner of England) and the name "down" is the Welsh "dun". And it did become the normal English word "down" (the opposite of "up") which is one of the odder bits of etymology. Someone descending a hill is coming "off down" or in Middle English "adown" - the first syllable got dropped and the word was generalised.
"Crag" is a celtic word as well.
I can't offhand think of any common words in English that are apparently derived from British that are not originally place name elements. I'm sure there must be some.
This might not be evidence of a complete replacement of the original British population by English speakers of course. Some languages are borrowers, others not. Nowadays Chinese borrows few words from anywhere, but Japanese and English borrow many.
(Famously:
quote:
English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
)
But maybe once upon a time English just wasn't in the habit of borrowing. Perhaps something happened in the early Middle Ages to turn English into a language that borrows words from other people. Which it certainly does. Latin and Greek at the forefront, but our relatively short contact with India has given us far more words than fifteen centuries living alongside British langauges. I think we have more Chinese words than Welsh. (for example: char/chai/tea, chin-chin, chop [stick], chop suey, chow, feng shui, fu, ginseng, gung ho, kaolin, ketchup, kowtow, kung fu, soya, tycoon, typhoon, yen [="desire" yen=money is from Japanese, though they got it from China])
Some people have a theory that when two languages meet the one that is easier for adults to learn to speak badly is more likely to be used for intercommunication. All languages seem easy enough for babies to learn, but not all languages are as easy for adults.
But what's "easy"? English, like Chinese, is notoriously hard to pronounce for non-speakers. (Much harder than say KiSwahili, or standard Italian, or Malay) But modern English (not Old English) and Chinese both have a very simplified syntax compared with their closed relatives, mainly based on word order rather than inflection. And they lack complicated tenses and grammatical gender and have few rules of agreemment between words so once you know a word you can often use it in all sorts of different contexts. The same is apparently true of Persian and to some extent spoken (but not written) French and Spanish (though Spanish still has grammatical gender, as does French, though barely). All languages that spread well beyond their original home. (On the other hand its not true of Arabic...)
Ah.. a colleague reminds me that there are some animal and plant names as well. "Gull" certainly (the English name used to be "mew"), possibly guillemot, probably penguin (used as a name for what we now call an auk)
The English certainly knew those birds before they came to Britain. I wonder why the words changed?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
French barely has grammatical gender? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Have you ever sat through a primary-school French class while the French teacher tries to teach word gender to students whose language barely recognizes the concept? English-speakers positively have to be beaten by the gender stick until they get the concept.
Monsieur! Quelle Horreur!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Thank you for the link to Father Hunwicke. If it could draw on other ancient sources, I can't understand why CW did not follow the Stowe Missal Prayer of Humble Access he cites.
'I am unworthy because I filthily adhere to the mire of dung and all my good deeds are like a rag used by a menstrual woman'.
More seriously, though, I also think that because nobody really knows what Celtic Christianity was like or how different it was, it is very convenient for people to be able to project onto it what they'd like it to be. Nobody can prove you are wrong. If you are Dr Paisley St Patrick was obviously a Free Presbyterian. If he were alive today, he'd be in Martyrs' Memorial every Sunday wearing a dark suit and a tie. To Elizabethan divines, the Celtic Church hardly differed from what they were turning the Church of England into.
The one thing you can say, is that they were ascetic and tough. You can't live on Skellig Michael at all, yet alone on a meagre diet, bare foot and roughly clad, without being. Not can you stand praying all night in the North Sea without being tough.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
French barely has grammatical gender?
Compared to Latin it doesn't. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And colloquial spoken French has less - a lot of inflections you have to remember to spell right all sound the same. Well, they do to me anyway. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Anyway that's just the sort of thing I mean. Sensible languages like English and Chinese don't have all that frippery. So they are easier to learn to speak badly but acceptably. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
ken, I grew up in a French-speaking northern New Brunswick and took French until Grade 10. You're off-base.
Spoken French frequently slurs the last letters of the preceding word if the following one has a vowel. Then those endings really come out. Plus the article, which Latin famously doesn't have, is declined for gender, number and possession plus du = de le which is considered inelegant by itself. Much grammatical "business" in French is moved to the article compared to Latin.
Don't get me started on the Past Perfect in which case gender and numbers is inflected into the entire verb construction.
Just because French pronounces a good deal of its endings as "eh" emphatically doesn't mean that the grammatical differences aren't relevant. Just as English's favourite grammatical ending of "s" in all its varied forms conveys several different meanings.
Having had a dip of Latin too all that's missing is the neuter gender.
Plus French grammatical gender is not based on natural gender, which drives Anglophones nuts.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think most of the easily marketable 'Celtic Christianity' of our day is ahistorical, to say the least.
Once the historical continuity of a movement/organization is broken it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconnect the chain. So various dubious 'chains', 'links' and 'histories' are manufactured.
The real history of Celtic Christianity is one of amazing survival in a very rugged environment. Wars, Viking incursions, disputation, heroic endeavour etc.
Don't tell Mel Gibson. We don't want a Celtic Christian 'Braveheart': Life of St...'
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Not to mention who or whatever said saint would hurl out the window....
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Don't tell Mel Gibson. We don't want a Celtic Christian 'Braveheart': Life of St...'
Titter ye not.
In New Celts by Roger Ellis & Chris Seaton, the film is quoted - "the holy Spirit Braveheart cry of 'freedom'."
There is some creative stuff in it. Just don't think it has anything to do with 6th century Britain.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Don't tell Mel Gibson. We don't want a Celtic Christian 'Braveheart': Life of St...'
Titter ye not.
In New Celts by Roger Ellis & Chris Seaton, the film is quoted - "the holy Spirit Braveheart cry of 'freedom'."
There is some creative stuff in it. Just don't think it has anything to do with 6th century Britain.
At anything connected with 'St' Mel, I don't titter, I guffaw.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Celtic Christianity has during modern times always been ahistorical. Just check out Making Myths Chasing Dreams by Ian Bradley.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
