FRIDAY MORNING MANNA

Biblical Numerology: NUMBER FIVE Part III

 Saint Patrick was Never a Catholic says Historians

 

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

 A lie travels round the world while Truth Is putting on her boots.

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON,Truth and Falsehood

     For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting; and His truth endureth through all generations. Psalms 100:5, K.J.V.

We digress a bit from our close focus on our series on the five wise and five foolish virgins of the parable in order to address an issue regarding this day, that, when seen from a larger perspective, reveals more dangers of spiritually falling asleep and then choosing to believe assertions in this twilight state of mind—meaning, a little knowledge is dangerous. One becomes a foolish virgin by blindly following traditions, fables, and what are deemed popularly acceptable and caters to one’s lowered concepts of truth to fit a preferred lifestyle rather than searching advancing truth “as for hidden treasure.”

Today, March 17, is Green day. Not in honor of the Green Peace environmental activists and watchdogs but St. Patrick’s Day. www.history.com says: “Every year on March 17, the Irish and the Irish-at-heart across the globe observe St. Patrick’s Day. What began as a religious feast day of the patron saint of Ireland has become an international festival celebrating Irish culture with parades, dancing, special foods and a whole of green.”

 Wikipedia says on the wearing of green:

     “On St. Patrick’s Day it is customary to wear shamrocks and/or green clothing or accessories. St. Patrick is said to have used the shamrock, a three-leaved plant, to explain the Holy Trinity. This story [actually, legend] first appears in writing in 1726, though it may be older. In pagan Ireland, three was as significant number [we covered this in past issues] and the Irish had many triple deities, a fact that may have aided St. Patrick in his evangelization efforts. Patricia Monaghan says there is no evidence that the shamrock was sacred to the pagan Irish. However, Jack Santino speculates that it may have represented the regenerative powers of nature, and was recast in a Christian context [a staple of the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church of “Christianizing” pagan customs and religious practices, etc]—icons of St. Patrick depict the saint ‘with the cross on one hand and a sprig of shamrock on the other.”

Source: Christian Edwardson, Facts of Faith, “Celtic Sabbath-Keepers” chap., Revised,  Southern Publishing Asso., TN, U.S.A:  1943:  pp. 37-146:

    “We know from several sources that Christianity entered the British Isles in apostolic times. (Colossians 1: 23). Rev. Richard Hart, B. A., Vicer of Catton, says: ‘That the light of Chrstianity dawned upon these islands in the course of the first century [the “Ephesus stage of the Church, Rev. 2: 1-7], is a matter of historical certainty.’ –‘Ecclesiastical Records,’ pp. vii. Cambridge: 1848.  Tertullian, about 200 A.D., included the Britons among the many nations which believed in Christ, and he speaks of places among ‘the Britons—inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ.’ —‘Answer to the Jews, chap. vii. Dr. Ephraim Pagit, in his ‘Christianography,’ printed in London, 1640, gives and interesting account of the early Christians in these islands.

     “Before the church in the British Isles was forced under the papal yoke [emphasis mine], it was noted for its institutions of learning. The Rev. Mr. Hart says:

          ‘That learning and piety flourished in these islands during the period of their independence [from the papal power] is capable of the most satisfactory proof, and Ireland in particular was so universally celebrated, that students flocked thither from all parts of the world.’ – Ecclesiastical Records,’ p. viii.

     “He says, some came to ‘Ireland for the sake of studying the Scriptures*’

          NOTE: The Papacy hated the Bible and sought to destroy it. See below.

 

The Coming of Patrick

     Patrick, a son of a Christian [Protestant, not Roman Catholic] in southern Scotland, was carried off to Ireland by pirates about 376 A.D. Here, in slavery, he gave his heart to God and, after six years of servitude, escaped, returning to his home in Scotland. But he could not forget the spiritual need of these poor heathen, and after ten years he returned to Ireland as a missionary of the Celtic church. ‘He had now reached his thirtieth year [390 A.D.].’ – ‘The Ancient British and Irish Churches,’ William Cathcart, D.D., p. 70. 

     “Dr.E. Pagit says that ‘Saint Patricke had in his day founded 365 churches.’ –‘Christianography,’ part 2, p. 10.

       “Dr. August Neander says of Patrick: The place of his birth was Bonnaven, whuch lay between the Scottish towns Dumbarton and Glasgow, and was then reckoned to the province of Britain. This village, in memory of Patricius, received the name of Kil-Patrick or Kirck-Patrick. His father, a deacon in the village church, gave him a careful education.’ –‘General History of the Christian Religion and Church,’ Vol. II, p. 122. Boston: 1855.

     “Patrick himself writes in his ‘Confession”:

          ‘I, Patrick, . . .  Had Calpornius for my father, a deacon, a son of the late Potitus, the presbyter . . . . I was captured. I was almost sixteen years of age . . . . and taken to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men.’ – ‘The Ancient British and Irish Churches,’ William Cathcart, D.D. p. 127.

Patrick Not a Catholic

     “To those who have heard of Patrick only as a Catholic saint, it may be a surprise to learn that he was not a Roman Catholic at all, but he was a member of the original Celtic church.There is no more historic evidence for Patrick being a Roman Catholic saint, thanfor Peter’s being the first Pope.  Catholics claim that Pope Celestine commissioned Patrick as a Roman Catholic missionary to Ireland; but William Cathcart, D. D., says:

          ‘There is strong evidence that Patrick had no Roman commission in Ireland.’

     “As Patrick’s churches in Ireland, like their brethren in Britain, repudiated the supremacy of the popes, all knowledge of the conversion of Ireland through his ministry must be suppressed by Rome, at all cost.’ – Id., p. 85.

 

     “The popes who lived contemporary with Patrick never mentioned him. ‘There is not a written word from one of them rejoicing over Patrick’s additions to their church, showing clearly that he was not a Roman missionary . . . . So completely buried was Patrick and his work by popes and other Roman Catholics, that in their epistles and larger publications, his name does not onceoccur in one of them until A.D. 634.’ – Id., p. 83. 

         ‘Prosper does not notice Patrick . . . .He says nothing of the greatest success ever given to a missionary of Christ, apparently because he was not a Romanist.” – Id., p. 84.

         ‘Bede never speaks of St. Patrick in his celebrated ‘Ecclesiastical History.’ ‘  Id., p. 85.

     “But, writing of the year 431, Bede says of a Catholic missionary: ‘Palladius was sent by Celestinus, the Roman pontiff, to the Scots [Irish].’ – ‘Ecclesiastical History,’ p. 22. London: 1894.

     “But this papal emissary [Palladius] was not received any more favorable by the church in Ireland, than was Augustine later received by the Celtic church of Scotland, for ‘he left because he did not received respect in Ireland.’ –  ‘The Ancient British and Irish Churches,’ William Cathcart, D.D., p. 172.

     “No Roman Catholic church would have dared to ignore a bishop sent to them by the pope. This proves that the churches in the British Isles did not recognize the pope.

     “Dr. Todd says:

           ‘ ‘ The confession,’ of St. Patrick contains not a word of a mission from Pope Celestine. One object of the writer was to defend himself of the charge of presumption in have undertaken such a work as the conversion of the Irish, rude and unlearned as he was. Had he received a regular commission from the See of Rome, that fact alone would be an unanswerable reply. But he makes no mentions of Pope Celestine, and rests his defense altogether on the divine callwhich he believed himself to have received for his work. ‘ – Id., pp. 81, 82.

     “Muirchu wrote more than two hundred years after Patrick’s death. His declaration is positive that he did not go to Rome.’ – Id., p. 88.

    “There are three reasons why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic missionary: 1. Early Catholic historians and popes avoided mentioning Patrick or his work; until later legendary histories represented him as a Catholic Saint.* 2. When papal missionaries arrived in Britain, 596 A.D., the leaders of the original Celtic church refused to accept their doctrines, or to acknowledge the papal authority, and would not dine with them (Compare 1 Corinthians 5: 11; 2 John 8-11.) They acted towards the Roman party exactly ‘as if they had been pagans.’ — ‘Ecclesiastical Records’ by Richard Hart, pp. viii, xiv.   3. The doctrines of the Celtic church of St. Patrick’s day differed so widely from

those of the Roman church, that the latter could not have accepted it as ‘Catholic.’ Patrick must have been a Sabbath-keeper, because the churches he established in Ireland, as well as the mother church in Scotland and England, followed the apostolic practice of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, and working on Sunday, as we soon shall see. But this was not considered deadly heresy by the Papacy.”–

       *These legendary histories of St. Patrick, written during the Dark Ages [538-1798], are so full of childish superstition and fabricated miracles, that they have to be rejected as actual history.

ROME’S HATRED AGAINST THE BIBLE

     “Rome was awake to the inevitable results of allowing the common people to read the Bible, and the Vicar of Croydon declared in a speech at St. Paul’s Cross, London: ‘We must destroy the printing press, or it will destroy us.’—‘The Printing Press and the Gospel,’ by E. R. Palmer, p. 24.The papal machinery was therefore set in motion for the destruction of the Bible.

     “There now began a remarkable contest between the Romish Church and the Bible—between the printers and the popes . . . . “To the Bible the popes at once declared a deathless hostility. To read the scriptures was in their eyes the grossest of crimes. . .  The Inquisition [renamedCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!] was invested with new terrors, and was forced upon France and Holland by papal armies. The Jesuits were everywhere distinguished by their hatred for the Bible. In the Netherlands they led in the persecutions of Alva and Philipp II; they rejoiced with a dreadful joy when Antwerp, Bruges, and Ghent, the fairest cities of the working men, were reduced to pauperism and ruin by the Spanish arms; for the Bible had perished with its defenders . . . . . .

     “To burn Bibles was the favorite employment of zealous Catholics. Wherever they were found the heretical volumes were destroyed by active Inquisitors, and thousands of Bibles and Testaments perished in every part of France.’ – ‘Historical Studies,’ Eugene Lawrence, pp. 254-257.

      “In Spain, not only were the common people forbidden to read the Bible, but also university professors were forbidden by the ‘Supreme Council’ of the Inquisition to possess their valuable Bible manuscripts. The Council, in consequence, decreed that those theologians in the university who had studied the original languages, should be obliged, as well as other persons, to give up their Hebrew and Greek Bibles to the commissaries of the holy office, on pain of excommunication. “-  ‘History of the Inquisition of Spain,” D.J.A. Llorente, Secretary of the Inquisition, p. 105. London, 1827.

(Continued next week)