OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 06:01:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Celtic Orthodoxy? - discussion  (Read 823 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« on: December 27, 2010, 01:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 01:33:54 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2010, 02:07:08 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2010, 02:10:02 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.
did they (along with the rest of the west) have any choice in this matter?  were they forced to unite with the pope of Rome against the Orthodox East?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2010, 02:13:09 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.

The East and West have gone in to schism twice; 863 and 1054. Petrine primacy was not the cause either time.

But I was only teasing.  laugh
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2010, 02:35:23 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.

The East and West have gone in to schism twice; 863 and 1054. Petrine primacy was not the cause either time.

But I was only teasing.  laugh

There have been smaller disagreements like when the Pope tried to universally declare when Easter should be celebrated (the issue wasn't the date, but the authority of the Pope to set the date) and threatened excommunication. Also, the schism in 863 was over whether or not the Pope had the authority to appoint or depose other patriarchs on his own.

Sorry for not catching the bread thing. It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2010, 03:32:03 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.
did they (along with the rest of the west) have any choice in this matter?  were they forced to unite with the pope of Rome against the Orthodox East?

I don't think it was a matter of choice. The schism isn't something that just happened overnight with clear cut lines that everyone could choose sides. I'm not aware of any council that was set up to depose the Pope of Rome and replace him like there had been with other bishops in the past. Historically, the city of Rome has from early centuries been central to Christianity in the west, and I can't say definitively, but I'm pretty sure local churches in the west and their bishops just maintained the relationships that they had already established with each other.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2010, 04:21:34 AM »

did they (along with the rest of the west) have any choice in this matter?  were they forced to unite with the pope of Rome against the Orthodox East?

Some people say that Irish and British faithful had been supporting Constantinople in this disagreement until the Isles were conquered by the Normans in 1066.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2010, 01:33:30 PM »

Some people say ... Give some names, please.
Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2010, 03:19:15 PM »

Some people say ... Give some names, please.

I would love to give you some names, but I only remember reading about certain things, one of which being how the Pope "gave" Ireland to the British kings. Essentially the Irish were happy doing things they way they had been but the Pope was unhappy in that the Irish did not always follow his decrees and still celebrated Easter at a different time (IIRC), yadda yadda... So the Pope told the Normans to go invade and if they were "converted" Ireland would belong to England.

Accounts of such can be read here
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0115.htm but is Baptist
http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/adrianiv.html not sure about this website (turned up in a search)
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html that website is weird all over

So, there are some places you can read about the supposed loss of Orthodoxy in Ireland due to Norman invasion.


Also, there are a few groups that call themselves Celtic Orthodox. A few here in the US and one I know of in France.

http://celticchristianity.org/ here is a site for in the US, I almost switched to this church when I was a Protestant, but never did. I have emailed them to ask what their views on the EO is and if they would be willing to seek communion... No response. They also use the Lorrha Stowe Missal for worship

http://www.orthodoxie-celtique.net/who%20we%20are.html another Celitc "Orthodox" church that claims to be the restored church founded by Joseph of Arimathea.

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2912-Celtic-Orthodox-Church this site has some info concerning certain Celtic Orthodox churches.

I post those sites to show that there are those interested in bringing back original Celtic Orthodoxy (i.e. the faith followed before RC in the Isles), or at least trying to profit from the Celtic craze. I wonder if they will ever seek communion with any actual Orthodox church instead of just using the name to draw people in...

and lastly, but not least

ALBA GU BRATH!!!

Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 12:51:48 AM »

did they (along with the rest of the west) have any choice in this matter?  were they forced to unite with the pope of Rome against the Orthodox East?

Some people say that Irish and British faithful had been supporting Constantinople in this disagreement until the Isles were conquered by the Normans in 1066.

On the issue of unleavened bread in the mass that led to the excommunications of 1054?

Most of the Christian world was ignorant that the disagreement had even occurred, at the time, and was for some long time after. As for the faithful of the British isles, it's likely that in the 11th century the vast majority of them were only vaguely aware that Constantinople was a place that existed at all.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 12:52:39 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2010, 01:01:45 AM »

did they (along with the rest of the west) have any choice in this matter?  were they forced to unite with the pope of Rome against the Orthodox East?

Some people say that Irish and British faithful had been supporting Constantinople in this disagreement until the Isles were conquered by the Normans in 1066.

On the issue of unleavened bread in the mass that led to the excommunications of 1054?

Most of the Christian world was ignorant that the disagreement had even occurred, at the time, and was for some long time after. As for the faithful of the British isles, it's likely that in the 11th century the vast majority of them were only vaguely aware that Constantinople was a place that existed at all.

i have to disagree, a book i have on Ireland says the monks and priests on the island were quite fluent in Greek up until (maybe after) the Norman invasion. Surely they must have known much more about Constantinople than you give them credit. Everything I read in that book seems to describe the faithful of Ireland to be much closer to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism, then suddenly that changed and the great schools of the Emerald Island went into disrepair from shutting down.

This was not an Orthodox book, but a history of Ireland (perhaps even called "The History of the Irish Race" IIRC) written by an Irish person...
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2010, 02:57:23 AM »

The monks were fluent in Greek, yea. I don't think they had any particular contact with Constantinople though. The awareness would have been only among the most learned strata of society.

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2010, 03:25:06 AM »

The monks were fluent in Greek, yea. I don't think they had any particular contact with Constantinople though. The awareness would have been only among the most learned strata of society.



The book seemed to imply that the most learned strata of society were the monks and priest, I'll have to read back over those parts at a later time to refresh my memory. Any way, we could argue this back and forth ad nauseum, but I neither have the time or the energy right now to do so... I shall engage this discussion later as this topic is still of particular interest to me.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2010, 06:53:19 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.

The East and West have gone in to schism twice; 863 and 1054. Petrine primacy was not the cause either time.

But I was only teasing.  laugh

There have been smaller disagreements like when the Pope tried to universally declare when Easter should be celebrated (the issue wasn't the date, but the authority of the Pope to set the date) and threatened excommunication. Also, the schism in 863 was over whether or not the Pope had the authority to appoint or depose other patriarchs on his own.

Sorry for not catching the bread thing. It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes.
Sorry to beat a horse that's been dead for 1100 years, but Emperors should not depose Patriarchs. If an Emperor were to say, illegitimately depose a Patriarch, then use an excommunicated bishop to ordain a layman to the Episcopate in six days and then have him "elected" the Patriarch of an already occupied See, that would be something that God-loving bishops are mandated to censure. Furthermore, as the protos of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome is obligated to take a lead role in reversing an abuse like that.

The schism had nothing to do with the Pope's authority, and everything to do with Imperial politics.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2010, 11:48:05 AM »

Quote from: Jason.Wike
Up until the schism the Celtic peoples were Orthodox like everyone else. Smiley

Wouldn't the Celtic peoples have stopped being Orthodox, in the eastern view, at the time that they started using unleavened bread in the mass, if that was what the schism was about?

Anyways, being Half Irish myself, this is very interesting to learn about. Thanks to all who posted information!

The schism is more about the nature and extent of primacy at the patriarchal level of church government (Papal authority) and how it is to be exercised than anything else. I'm not saying it was the only cause, just the primary cause and has been the primary cause of almost every schism that has happened between Rome and the east.

My opinion would be that it would be safe to say that the Celtic people could be considered Orthodox all the way up until communion was finally broken.

The East and West have gone in to schism twice; 863 and 1054. Petrine primacy was not the cause either time.

But I was only teasing.  laugh

There have been smaller disagreements like when the Pope tried to universally declare when Easter should be celebrated (the issue wasn't the date, but the authority of the Pope to set the date) and threatened excommunication. Also, the schism in 863 was over whether or not the Pope had the authority to appoint or depose other patriarchs on his own.

Sorry for not catching the bread thing. It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes.
Sorry to beat a horse that's been dead for 1100 years, but Emperors should not depose Patriarchs. If an Emperor were to say, illegitimately depose a Patriarch, then use an excommunicated bishop to ordain a layman to the Episcopate in six days and then have him "elected" the Patriarch of an already occupied See, that would be something that God-loving bishops are mandated to censure. Furthermore, as the protos of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome is obligated to take a lead role in reversing an abuse like that.

The schism had nothing to do with the Pope's authority, and everything to do with Imperial politics.

Well, this is not the general Orthodox view of history.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2010, 10:57:57 PM »

The monks were fluent in Greek, yea. I don't think they had any particular contact with Constantinople though. The awareness would have been only among the most learned strata of society.

I looked at the book I have and it is "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seamus MacManus. The Irish had many missionaries in many countries, so I do not see why none of them would not have some contact with the Orthodox Church, I mean apparently St. Brendan sailed to America so why couldn't other Irish reach Greece?

Also, I took a peek at the Lorrha-Stowe Missal and noticed the filioque was missing from the Nicene Creed - this is supposedly the Liturgy used by the Celtic Christians way back when (I still need to research that though and find out when it went into disuse...).
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.12 seconds with 43 queries.