Hi
Llandaff, not Rome Had the Oldest Christian Religion in the West.
Rome for millennia has used its propaganda machinery to claim itself as the one true church and oldest church in the west, and any rebuttal of that was met with a sharp and severe response from its hierarchy. Yet, its self-importance is discredited by its historical records within the earliest founding churches.
I am not making a case for Christianity, far from it, I am merely putting history right, and giving credit where it’s due.
By the early 300s CE, Rome was bottom of the religious league table, its move from the bottom listing was fast, not because of its new-found antiquity, far from it. Its move up the ladder after the death of the scholarly emperor Julian (361-363) aka Julian the Apostate was swift. By 380 CE it was the sole religion of the Roman empire with the full backing and might of the Roman army at its disposal. Thanks to a tripartite of belligerent Roman emperors stated in their decree: “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians.” source: Theodosian Code XVI.i,2. Fordham University, which is a scholarly Jesuit College, funded by the Catholic diocese of New York since 1841.
As I said it is well documented, by past historians including those of the church fathers. Men such as Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Dorotheus bishop of Tyre, Athanasius of Alexandria, Theodoret the Blessed, John Chrysostom patriarch of Constantinople, etc, etc. All disagree with the Church of Rome on the antiquity of the church. Not forgetting Augustine (d. C. 604 CE) the emissary of Gregory the I (590-604) to Britain, who landed in Kent in 597 CE, and came face to face with a different and older Christian religion.
The Jutes of Kent were the first of the Germanics to be Christianise when their powerful king, Æthelberht I (590-616) was baptised in 601 CE by Augustine.
That title for the oldest church in the West goes to the Celtic-Gaul Church of the Brythoniaid/Britons, more than five centuries before Catholicism ever came to Britain in 597 CE and an even more than 1,100 years before Catholicism arrived in Ireland in 1171 CE.
The Cleric Gildas (500-70 CE) in his epic work De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae/The conquest and Ruin of Britain, wrote: Meanwhile these islands, stiff with cold and frost, and in a distant region of the world, remote from the visible sun, received the beams of light, that is, the holy precepts of Christ, the true Sun, showing to the whole world his splendour, not only from the temporal firmament, but from the height of heaven, which surpasses everything temporal, at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [14-37 CE], by whom his religion was propagated without impediment, and death threatened to those who interfered with Its professors. The brackets [ ] and dating are mine.
The eminent Catholic scholar Baronius agrees with Gildas.
Cardinal Caesar Baronius (1538-1607), confirmed the primacy of the Early British Church over that of Rome, having been planted in the British Isles in AD 35 (Ecclesiastical Annals for year 35 CE).
Origen: “The land of Britain has received the religion of Christ.”
Tertullian: wrote: The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms have received the religion of Christ.” (Tertullian Def. Fidel, p. 179).
Hippolytus: one of the most learned Christian historians, identifies the seventy whom Jesus sent in Luke 10, and includes Aristobulus listed in Romans 16:10 with Joseph and states that he ended up becoming a Pastor in Britain.
Eusebius wrote: “The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Britannic Isles.” (De Demonstratione Evangelii, Lib iii).
(…A good example is his statement in Demonstratio Evangelica, or The Proof of the Gospel (3.5.112), that some of the apostles preached the gospel in “the land of the Isles of Britain.” Where did Eusebius get this information? Possibly from now-lost books (such as the second-century Concerning the Origin of the British Church by Elvanus) whose names are occasionally found in various ancient works….Ivor C. Fletcher and Peter Nathan )
Dorotheus bishop of Tyre: A learned priest said AD 303: “Aristobulus, whom Paul; saluted, writing to the Romans (Romans 16:10) was Bishop of Britain.”(Synopsis de Apostol, Synops 23 “Aristobulus”).
Athanasius of Alexandria: writing AD 353, describes the Churches of Britain as adhering to the faith of the Council of Nicaea, AD 325. (vide Ussher. De Brit. Ecc. Primord. Cap viii).
Theodoret the Blessed: said: “Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome, preached the Gospel to the Britons and others in the West. Our fishermen and publicans not only persuaded the Romans and their tributaries to acknowledge the Crucified and His laws, but the Britons/the Cymry” [the Welsh]. (D. Civ. Gracae Off. Lib. IX).
John Chrysostom patriarch of Constantinople: describes the Churches of Britain as adhering to the faith of the Council of Nicaea, AD 325. (vide Ussher. De Brit. Ecc. Primord. Cap viii), etc, etc.
The British Bishops, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London and Adelfius of Caerleon were present at the Church Council of Arles to AD 314. British Bishops were also present at the Councils of Nicaea, 325 CE, Sardica in Illyria, 347 CE, and Ariminium in Italy, 359 CE. (Mansi, Concilia. Vol. II, pp. 476-477. Haddan & Stubbs, Vol. I, p.7).
Augustine on his arrival in Britain was shocked to find Christianity already in Britain, but a different religion to that of Rome. We have his letter to his Bishop of Rome, asking for assistance on what to do!
Augustine’s third question: Since there is but one faith, why are the uses of Churches so different, one use of Mass being observed in the Roman Church, and another in the Churches of Gaul*? Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 13,
Registrum Epistolarum (Gregory the Great), Book XI, Letter 64
*Gaul means Celtic-Gaul/Brython/Briton/Welsh. In the Romance languages of Europe, the Welsh are still referred to the Gaul. The French still refer to the Welsh as Gallois (Gauls) and Wales as Pays de Galles (land of the Gauls). Yet in the West Germanic languages (English, Scots, German, Dutch, Danish, etc.) of today, Welsh still means “foreigner” in Germanic.
Should the indigenous people of Britain be recognised as having the first Church in the West, as they once had that privilege?
Be nice and comment on any part of the post or all of its contents?
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/