Celtic Church dominant in England?

Is it possible for the Celtic Church or Irish Celtic church to become the dominant faith on the British Islands?

Maybe that Synod would have another turnout?
 
POD: Archbishop Wilfrid does not attend the Synod of Whitby in 664. The Celtic faction thus beats the Roman Faction, leading to Celtic ascendancy in Britain.
 
But how would the synod of Whitby (dumb name) be in the favor of the Celtic Church i thought they lost that one because the papal representative told they were protecte by Saint Petrus(?) who guards the gate to heaven.
 
The Celtic Church was closer to the Eastern church than to Rome. It kept the same calculation for Easter for example.

Politically, it was impossible for the church in Britain (England) to retain its traditions that were in conflict with Rome. It had to accept the general consensus that prevailed in the west and be prepared to come into the orbit of the pope's spiritual authority or be regarded as a backward stae.
 
Traditions like the datum of eastern?

Maybe they will adapt and will still be catholic but in a much slower process.
 
Traditions like the datum of eastern?

Maybe they will adapt and will still be catholic but in a much slower process.

I do not see how they could be catholic and not accept the authority of the pope. Once that happens they are then in the mainstream of western culture and accepted as legitimate by the other states in the west. No crusade against the heretic English by the Franks or somebody else. In other words exatly what happened in OTL.
 
So there is no way to maintain the Celtic Church in England?

Maybe if the Norman Invasion fails. But then there's still the vikings.
 
But how would the synod of Whitby (dumb name) be in the favor of the Celtic Church i thought they lost that one because the papal representative told they were protecte by Saint Petrus(?) who guards the gate to heaven.

I shall inform the people of whitby to rename their town at once! :D

Part of the Synod was down to politics in England at the time, perhaps if Northumberia wasn't dominant the outcome might have been different, or if Oswiu had married a woman who followed the 'celtic' church rather than Roman, the synod migh never have happened.
 
I shall inform the people of whitby to rename their town at once! :D

Part of the Synod was down to politics in England at the time, perhaps if Northumberia wasn't dominant the outcome might have been different, or if Oswiu had married a woman who followed the 'celtic' church rather than Roman, the synod migh never have happened.

Absolutely political you are correct.

My contention is the political aspect was international not just a question of domestic marital arrangements.
 
Absolutely political you are correct.

My contention is the political aspect was international not just a question of domestic marital arrangements.

Oh, you're right right on the international political aspect but it was Oswiu's marriage to a daughter of King Edwin and her observance of a different Easter to him that brought matters to a head in England (my history teacher, tounge in cheek perhaps, suggested it was because they both gave up sex for Easter and Oswiu got a bit too frustatrated :D).
 
Why do all pods that involve faith end in sex?


(This is an unimportant concept for the threads question but hei who cares?)
 
Oh, you're right right on the international political aspect but it was Oswiu's marriage to a daughter of King Edwin and her observance of a different Easter to him that brought matters to a head in England (my history teacher, tounge in cheek perhaps, suggested it was because they both gave up sex for Easter and Oswiu got a bit too frustatrated :D).

A double Lent! Maybe your teacher was onto something there.
 
Actually, I think the Synod of Whitby was a rather close run thing.

One of the turning points was the costly and fancy vestments and regalia the RCs wore. This impressed the king with the power and wealth of the Roman church. A POD could be simply convincing the king that that money had to come from SOMEWHERE and wouldn't he rather have it going into his pockets than the church's?

I think the Anglo-Saxon lands (and later the Norse) would do better with Celtic Christianity than Roman, although it's hard to say at this point.

Butterflies would include that the missionaries from Britain that did much of the evangelization of the Germanies would iATL be Celtic, not Roman.

Remember, this is 100 years before Charlemagne, and OTL's Charlemagne's Carolingian Renaissance was spearheaded by Alcuin of York.

A stronger Celtic church could mean that a Carolingian empire wouldn't be so strongly identified with Rome and that the alt-Roman church might well end up being rather less monolithic.
 
I'm new here - my first post - so bear with me.

That out of the way, I think that the at-large Englishman - or woman - of the time would have felt much more comfortable with w Celtic Church. In my readings, I suspect that the Celtic influence would have given a more "worldly" view, that is, more in tune with the realities of day-to-day life. And there would have been a LOT less emphasis on guilt & sin that was a part of the Roman tradition. And sex, for example, would have been seen more than just "duty" to the ire of the Roman tradition. If one reads the history of the Celtic Church in IReland and the Isles, there is an emphasis on the celebration of the world and all that is in it. And I sense an underlying attitude sort of like :If God created it, then it's not just good, but it's to be enjoyed!" Mix this with the rituals Patrick and his followers used, there isn't much in the way of "God, deliver me from this terrible sinful world," but a sense of acceptance of one's imperfection, need to repent, but to still enjoy life. An interesting short read is Esther de Waal's Every Earthly Blessing available from (of course!) Amazon.com.

Just my two cents worth.

Bobindelaware
 
I'm new here - my first post - so bear with me.

That out of the way, I think that the at-large Englishman - or woman - of the time would have felt much more comfortable with w Celtic Church. In my readings, I suspect that the Celtic influence would have given a more "worldly" view, that is, more in tune with the realities of day-to-day life. And there would have been a LOT less emphasis on guilt & sin that was a part of the Roman tradition. And sex, for example, would have been seen more than just "duty" to the ire of the Roman tradition. If one reads the history of the Celtic Church in IReland and the Isles, there is an emphasis on the celebration of the world and all that is in it. And I sense an underlying attitude sort of like :If God created it, then it's not just good, but it's to be enjoyed!" Mix this with the rituals Patrick and his followers used, there isn't much in the way of "God, deliver me from this terrible sinful world," but a sense of acceptance of one's imperfection, need to repent, but to still enjoy life. An interesting short read is Esther de Waal's Every Earthly Blessing available from (of course!) Amazon.com.

Just my two cents worth.

Bobindelaware

Excellent post, especially for a first one!

I would basically agree with everything you said, with the proviso that it's easy to blow things out of proportion, and overidealize the Celtic church. For instance, the matter of how sex was viewed. True, the Celtic church did have a much less paranoid conception of sex and the sexes than the Roman church (especially the extremes thereof), but they did still celebrate celibacy - all Christendom did.

Note, I'm not suggesting that you fell into that trap - in fact some of your careful wording suggests strongly to me that you understand nuances well.
 
Excellent post, especially for a first one!

I would basically agree with everything you said, with the proviso that it's easy to blow things out of proportion, and overidealize the Celtic church. For instance, the matter of how sex was viewed. True, the Celtic church did have a much less paranoid conception of sex and the sexes than the Roman church (especially the extremes thereof), but they did still celebrate celibacy - all Christendom did.

Note, I'm not suggesting that you fell into that trap - in fact some of your careful wording suggests strongly to me that you understand nuances well.

Actually, Dathi, I DO have an interest in Celtic Christianity, as an Episcopalian and as a Science Fiction/Alternative History junkie. Also, I have an undergraduate degree in Biblical Studies and Theology (along with a second major, Psychology) and have delved a bit into the whole Celtic Spirituality thing a bit.

In terms of sex, I would say that a Celtic approach would be less of a Guilt thing - "Oh, Mercy! God forgive me as I just had sex with my wife (husband) and enjoyed it!" - that seems to come from the Roman tradition. And I personally blame the St. Augustine for that. A more Patrician attitude would celebrate the idea of Man- & Womanhood and all it implies as a gift from God and therefore to be celebrated as something Good. And therein lies, for me at least, the key difference between the Celtic & Roman traditions: If God created it, then it is good. And while St. Paul presented all things as having fallen under Original Sin (& I'm NOT going to go there!) He allows for celebration of the restored creation (including Man) in advance or in anticipation of redemption. Somehow, the Roman tradition seemed to lose it somewhere.

More two cents worth.

Bob
 
Top