Originally posted by Wulebgr
It took centuries for the Roman Church to solidify its doctrines into a coherent whole...
It took centuries for the Roman Church to solidify its doctrines into a coherent whole, and centuries more to stamp out the vestiges of alternative practices--all of which are of greater antiquity. Celtic Christianity is more pure, and more true to the teachings of the first xtians than anything in Rome, itself more pure and true to the original than anythin ...[text shortened]... ar Protestant Revolt. Most true xtians today practice a religion that the majority labels pagan.
For example (from the Orthodox point of view), the Great Schism of 1054, when Rome separated from the Orthodox Churches, over (1) the filioque
(the addition, in the West, of the words “and the son” to the third article of the Nicene Creed), and (2) the authority of the patriarch of Rome, vis-à-vis the other patriarchates and the ecumenical councils, to insist on such a creedal change. Orthodox writers sometimes refer to this as “the first reformation.”
I recall reading somewhere that Celtic Christianity was closer to the Orthodox tradition of the East. But Celtic Christianity lost out to the Roman form at the Synod of Whitby in 664. Of course at this time, there was no RCC separate
St. John Chrysostom (347 – 406 CE), Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote: “The British Isles which are beyond the sea, and which lie in the ocean, have received virtue of the Word. Churches are there found and altars erected ... Though thou shouldst go to the ocean, to the British Isles, there though shouldst hear all men everywhere discoursing matters out of the scriptures, with another voice indeed, but not another faith, with a different tongue, but the same judgement.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity; wikipedia discusses older traditions about how Christianity came to Britain, and only gives passing mention to possible correspondences with the Eastern churches.]