Brother Patrick?

[GreenEyedLady]

I have read differant histories behind "St. Patrick."
Some say he was protestant, some say he was Catholic.
Some even say he had "baptist" doctrines.
What have you read about Brother Patrick or Saint Patrick?
GEL

 

[Tenorvoice]

This is one that I have found:



The person who was to become St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was born in Wales about AD 385. His given name was Maewyn, and he almost didn't get the job of bishop of Ireland because he lacked the required scholarship.

Far from being a saint, until he was 16, he considered himself a pagan. At that age, he was sold into slavery by a group of Irish marauders that raided his village. During his captivity, he became closer to God.

He escaped from slavery after six years and went to Gaul where he studied in the monastery under St. Germain, bishop of Auxerre for a period of twelve years. During his training he became aware that his calling was to convert the pagans to Christianity.

His wishes were to return to Ireland, to convert the native pagans to Christianity. But his superiors instead appointed St. Palladius. But two years later, Palladius transferred to Scotland. Patrick, having adopted that Christian name earlier, was then appointed as second bishop to Ireland.

Patrick was quite successful at winning converts. And this fact upset the Celtic Druids. Patrick was arrested several times, but escaped each time. He traveled throughout Ireland, establishing monasteries across the country. He also set up schools and churches which would aid him in his conversion of the Irish country to Christianity.

His mission in Ireland lasted for thirty years. After that time, Patrick retired to County Down. He died on March 17 in AD 461. That day has been commemorated as St. Patrick's Day ever since.

Much Irish folklore surrounds St. Patrick's Day. Not much of it is actually substantiated.

Some of this lore includes the belief that Patrick raised people from the dead. He also is said to have given a sermon from a hilltop that drove all the snakes from Ireland. Of course, no snakes were ever native to Ireland, and some people think this is a metaphor for the conversion of the pagans. Though originally a Catholic holy day, St. Patrick's Day has evolved into more of a secular holiday.

One traditional icon of the day is the shamrock. And this stems from a more bona fide Irish tale that tells how Patrick used the three-leafed shamrock to explain the Trinity. He used it in his sermons to represent how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit could all exist as separate elements of the same entity. His followers adopted the custom of wearing a shamrock on his feast day.

The St. Patrick's Day custom came to America in 1737. That was the first year St. Patrick's Day was publicly celebrated in this country, in Boston. Today, people celebrate the day with parades, wearing of the green, and drinking beer. One reason St. Patrick's Day might have become so popular is that it takes place just a few days before the first day of spring. One might say it has become the first green of spring.

 

[Alexis OCA]

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

From slavery you escaped to freedom in Christ's service:
He sent you to deliver Ireland from the devil's bondage.
You planted the Word of the Gospel in pagan hearts.
In your journeys and hardships you rivaled the Apostle Paul!
Having received the reward for your labors in heaven,
Never cease to pray for the flock you have gathered on earth,
Holy bishop Patrick!

 

[Psalm40]

St. Patrick was a bishop of the Catholic Church (son of a deacon in Great Britain; his mother was a cousin of St. Martin of Tours) who's testimony is told in his autobiography, "Confessio":

http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/patrick.html

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Here is a rebuttle I found.
The claim that he was a baptist missonary.
Thoughts? I am going to pull up other articles with other denominations as well.

http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm

Historians also record that "...upon his twenty-first year, he escaped the chains of servitude..." and returned to his father's home in Scotland, only to find that he had died and his land acquired by others. It was during this time that Patrick, "being a stronger Christian, the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary for that blinded country" (Ibid.). Jarrel further suggests that the more one studies the life, ministry and writings of this Irish "apostle", "...the more he stands out as a Baptist." He, Jarrel, is perhaps among the greatest authorities on the subject of Saint Patrick, as one full chapter of his makes several suggestions as to why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic priest:

1. "At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo".

2. "In St. Patrick's time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized."

3. "There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celistine." Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.

Neander, the church historian, wrote, "If Patrick came to Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

This one is also very intresting. It more or less states that both Catholic and protestant faiths try to claim him with little evidence from both parties.

http://slate.msn.com/id/77427
The scarcity of facts about St. Patrick's life has made him a dress-up doll: Anyone can create his own St. Patrick. Ireland's Catholics and Protestants, who have long feuded over him, each have built a St. Patrick in their own image. Catholics cherish Paddy as the father of Catholic Ireland. They say that Patrick was consecrated as a bishop and that the pope himself sent him to convert the heathen Irish. (Evidence is sketchy about both the bishop and pope claims.) One of the most popular Irish Catholic stories holds that Patrick bargained with God and got the Big Fella to promise that Ireland would remain Catholic and free.

Ireland's Protestant minority, by contrast, denies that Patrick was a bishop or that he was sent by Rome. They depict him as anti-Roman Catholic and credit him with inventing a distinctly Celtic church, with its own homegrown symbols and practices. He is an Irish hero, not a Catholic one.

Outside Ireland, too, Patrick has been freely reinterpreted. Evangelical Protestants claim him as one of their own. After all, he read his Bible, and his faith came to him in visions. Biblical inspiration and personal revelation are Protestant hallmarks. Utah newspapers emphasize that Patrick was a missionary sent overseas to convert the ungodly, an image that resonates in Mormon country. New Age Christians revere Patrick as a virtual patron saint. Patrick co-opted Druid symbols in order to undermine the rival religion, fusing nature and magic with Christian practice. The Irish placed a sun at the center of their cross. "St. Patrick's Breastplate," Patrick's famous prayer (which he certainly did not write) invokes the power of the sun, moon, rocks, and wind, as well as God. (This is what is called "Erin go hoo-ha.")

 

[aReformedPatriot]

there were baptists in 461 A.D.???

 

[GreenEyedLady]

there were baptists in 461 A.D.???

It depends on how you look at history.
Technically, Baptist doctrine has been around since the early church even though those who followed it were not called "Baptist"
That is why this person is claiming he was baptist. I think its a far far reach, but that is how I am sure they look at it.
GEL

 

[MrJim]

David Bercot's book "Let Me Die in Ireland" is approached from Patrick documents but put into novel form to make it an interesting read. He points out how "un-catholic" Patrick was by pointing out how he didn't follow Catholic doctrines. He wasn't celibate, he never referred to himself as a priest, and never mentions Mary, masses, rosaries, relics, etc. in his writings.

 

[Iollain]

Definitly not Catholic then.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Don't forget that this was during the time of the undivided Church, so Patrick could accurately be called Orthodox, too. Many of the later developments of the church centered in Rome had not taken root yet, so Patrick's teachings would not have reflected those things.

Mary

 

[Crazy Liz]

David Bercot's book "Let Me Die in Ireland" is approached from Patrick documents but put into novel form to make it an interesting read. He points out how "un-catholic" Patrick was by pointing out how he didn't follow Catholic doctrines. He wasn't celibate, he never referred to himself as a priest, and never mentions Mary, masses, rosaries, relics, etc. in his writings.

Patrick was not a schismatic, was he? I have never heard that he, or the Celtic Church he founded, were not in communion with the other churches of his time, including Rome. The term "catholic," as used in St. Patrick's time, did not mean "subject to the Bishop of Rome" (the pope), but "in communion with all the other non-heretical, non-schismatic churches." Only after about 1054 did "Catholic" (now for the first time spelled with a capital "C") come to mean "subject to the Bishop of Rome, and not in communion with the Bishop of Constantinople.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Patrick was not a schismatic, was he? I have never heard that he, or the Celtic Church he founded, were not in communion with the other churches of his time, including Rome. The term "catholic," as used in St. Patrick's time, did not mean "subject to the Bishop of Rome" (the pope), but "in communion with all the other non-heretical, non-schismatic churches." Only after about 1054 did "Catholic" (now for the first time spelled with a capital "C") come to mean "subject to the Bishop of Rome, and not in communion with the Bishop of Constantinople.

Very intresting. So why then does the RCC claim him to be a priest or bishop of the RCC?
That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Crazy Liz]

This one is also very intresting. It more or less states that both Catholic and protestant faiths try to claim him with little evidence from both parties.

[snip]

Ireland's Protestant minority, by contrast, denies that Patrick was a bishop or that he was sent by Rome. They depict him as anti-Roman Catholic and credit him with inventing a distinctly Celtic church, with its own homegrown symbols and practices. He is an Irish hero, not a Catholic one.

This doesn't say Irish protestants claim St. Patrick was Protestant. He couldn't have been. He lived 1000 years before there ever were any protestants.

The idea of a distinctly Celtic (but also catholic) church is not at all inconsistent with what we know about churches of the same time. There were churches with their own distinct languages, liturgies, and spiritual emphases in many regions. The majority of Christians at the time spoke either Greek or Latin, and had liturgies written in those languages, but there were also Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and other churches, all in communion with both Rome and Constantinople, and therefore catholic.

 

[Terri]

Well, I'm not putting anyone down for their interest in this fellow, even though I will now question that interest.

So, for Baptists I ask why the interest? Now I do appreciate that he is responsible for a day on which people show their respect for the most perfect color of green. But, beyond that why does this guy matter?

Is this thread just a history lesson? If so, please show me the door!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Very intresting. So why then does the RCC claim him to be a priest or bishop of the RCC?
That doesn't make any sense.

I think if you asked them to clarify, they would say he was a priest or bishop of the catholic church, which was not yet Romanized by that date. Although it seems all Western bishops were considered subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, rather than equal with him, like the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the Bishop of Rome had not yet made the claims to superiority that led to the East-West split several hundred years later.

The evidence of any connection between St. Patrick and the Bishop of Rome seems to be conflicting. However, for a bishop to be consecrated, it generally required that other bishops participate. If Patrick was consecrated a bishop, a Roman bishop (either the Bishop of Rome or one of his subordinate bishops) would have participated in his consecration.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well, I'm not putting anyone down for their interest in this fellow, even though I will now question that interest.

So, for Baptists I ask why the interest? Now I do appreciate that he is responsible for a day on which people show their respect for the most perfect color of green. But, beyond that why does this guy matter?

Is this thread just a history lesson? If so, please show me the door!

Are you saying history isn't important to Baptists?

 

[Terri]

Are you saying history isn't important to Baptists?

If I had wanted to say that--I would have said it!!

What I want is more than a history lesson. I mean has this guy said or done anything that is profound? Has he said anything that I can't learn from God's Word? Or is he just some guy from history whose sole purpose is to be argued over as to which "group" he hung out with?

 

[Crazy Liz]

If I had wanted to say that--I would have said it!!

What I want is more than a history lesson. I mean has this guy said or done anything that is profound? Has he said anything that I can't learn from God's Word? Or is he just some guy from history whose sole purpose is to be argued over as to which "group" he hung out with?

Sorry, I just wasn't quite sure.

It seems pretty well agreed that he was a great evangelist and church organizer, worthy of our admiration 1500 years later.

He also left behind some inspiring poetry that we still sing in our churches today.

Those would both be profound things we could talk about, to our edification in the present.

 

[MrJim]

One of the reasons to examine history is to see what we can learn and to be inspired by those that came before us. We do get hung up on labels, and everyone wants to claim the "good guys" (such as both RC and reformed latching onto Augustine) for themselves. The example of Patrick's zeal and sacrifice in service to Christ is an example I use when I examine myself and in talking with others. It has to more than green beer and shamrocks, and the devil will use anything to throw us off message.