"The English Church Before It Was Roman" How Orthodox Anglicanism is an Ancient and Patristic Faith 

Have you researched you family tree, I have started mine and was surprised that my family came from different places I had not expected

@@paulbutterworthbillericay yeah I did a DNA ancestry test, my family is 90% Welsh, 4% English and 6% Norwegian apparently.

Our Celtic links are still strong here in Wales. Celtic saints are remembered in place names, many churches are named after Celtic saints. Saint Winifred’s Well is still a highly visited and revered pilgrim destination for its healing miracles, although appropriated by the Roman church! Still, so be it, it is a Celtic site.

Thanks for visiting

Did you read the comment above yours? A little correction on father's history lesson. Might be good to read, as this was so instrumental in your conversion.

You`re good with celebrating s0domy?

You should look into Western Orthodoxy, anglicanism unfortunately is just another branch cut off from Papism (RCC). May God guide you home, a beautiful Sarum Rite Liturgy would show you the way.

Perhaps I should do a follow up discussing the Biblical Chronology of Bede and Archbishop Ussher.

Thanks for the comment and encouragement!

Your point about Carlisle is interesting, given the time frame it would have been Strathclyde which had welsh cultural connections or celtic connections (even if it's a rather nebulous term) you've given me some food for thought.

Will do

Yes! Lot of shared history there. Cranmer went to Germany and was influenced by the Lutherans!

Both wrong

@Daniel Smith The Moravians kinda do that, their theology is the first 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, the 39 Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, and ofc the Creeds. While I find this diversity of doctrine really fascinating, I don't see how this is possible when they all contradict each other

@@DeFyYing - hear hear! These numerous contradictions are what lead to the inevitable fractionalizing of the protestant churches…..the lack of authority and magisterium, coupled with institutional secularization is a recipe for failure.

@@ragnardanneskajold1880 Regarding theological contradictions, most Protestant traditions have a confession of faith which state their doctrine. Lutherans like myself have the Book of Concord, Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession, Continental Reformed have the Heidelberg Catechism and/or the Belgic Confession, Methodists have the 25 Articles, even Baptists technically have theirs (London Baptist Confession for Reformed Baptists, and the Standard Confession for General Baptists). This confession of faith states the belief of that tradition, so it doesn't contradict itself. However a large swath of American Protestantism is non-denominational evangelicalism which I believe eschews historicity and theology in exchange for "relationship over religion". Christianity is of both the heart AND of the head. Regarding Church authority, I do agree that some degree of authority is necessary so that chaos does not ensue. However, I personally have some criticisms of the Catholic Church's execution of this in my other reply to you on the other comment thread. And in regards to Church authority over theology, the doctrines of Vatican II are very much different from the rest of Catholic teaching on Hell and salvation, language, and worship like Novus Ordo and versus populum. With the first one the idea of salvation in the proclamation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus to the statements of Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium is significant. Some might drift towards Sedevacantism in opposition towards all of this, but imo doing so seems to undermine the idea of the Church's infallibility (not in an ex cathedra way, but moreso its continuity with Church history as the succession of St Peter from Matthew 16:18).

And looking for the history of the Church I totally agree with you, St Patrick was from the Celtic church, that's historic true

I wish that I had an Antiochian congregation in the town I live. The Antiochian seems to be more open to frustrated Roman Catholics like me. I attended in two other places regularly, and was enriched by the experience.I was Chrismated in 97 .

Antioch is my Mother Church too.

@@johnfleming7879 Orthodoxy is not a shelter for frustrated Roman Catholics, rather it's a place for people who want to be Orthodox because they think it's correct, patristic, that the Greeks were the theologically and ecclesiologically correct party in 1054. Etc. Don't use it as a bomb shelter and then keep the beliefs that caused the bombs, we don't want to get bombed either :)

@Johnny Michael yes, Orthodoxy may have its predominant presence in the Levant today. Historically speaking, however, all of Christendom was theologically Orthodox. These ethnic jurisdictions of which you speak are merely just that, jurisdictional. They have no bearing on the liturgical theology, soteriology, etc. of the Orthodox faith. You are merely thinking of the cultural and ethnic expressions of the faith within these regional jurisdictions.

@@charlesmaximus9161 thanks!

Its look Nice, but....check the primary sources about Patrick that the irish and scottish saints have written, they show that Patrick and other were sent by the pope way before Augustine of Canterbury. Patrick himself studied in France (see of Arles) and in Italy (see of Rome). "English christianity" was not some independent self teaching church, but members of the orthodox church with particular customs.

Anglicans are not Western Orthodox. We don’t claim to be the “true” church the way you fanatics do. We ordain women and gays so please don’t associate yourselves with us.

There’s a lot less agreement than you might think.

What do you mean by rejoin the Orthodox church ? the Anglican Church or(CofE) was never part of the Orthodox church. The Church of England was a creation of the English State under Edward VI and Elizabeth I nothing more & nothing less.

​@@robertweidner2480Correct. There are a few areas of disagreements that go quite deep.

The Anglican Church lost apostolic succession after the first generation after The reformation. Joining the Orthodox Church wouldn't be a straight across move simply because the Anglican Church now rejects things like the real presence in the Eucharist among other things. The 39 Articles pretty much spell out the Protestant beliefs of the Anglican Communion.

@@johncox2284 Article 28 rejects transubstantiation not the real presence. As for the Anglican Church losing apostolic succession, that may be your opinion, but it is an opinion that I and the Anglican Church reject. Now what are these other things believed by the Apostles and the Church fathers that the Anglican Church rejects?

Yes, and an entire lecture ought to be devoted to this alone!

There is records of Deacon Palladius later to be Bishop of Ireland being commissioned by the Pope to combat Pelagianism. There was a Briton bishop at a church Synod in Gaul in 455. Theodore of Tarsus went from Constantinople all the way to Kent to become Archbishop of Canterbury. The English Church was always a part of the global Church and no act of Parliament can change that

@@alexzadrazil7242 the global church was never beholden to the papacy entirely

@@l21n18 That is true the Church of the East is one such example. As are the Arians, Gnostics Chartars etc.. The idea that Celtic customs somehow marked an independent Christian Church in England and Ireland is historical false. The first Christians in the British Isles were Romans the second conversion was sent by the Pope himself. And it was never a belief in the early Church that Bishops were merely one Church structure amongst many others as the REC teaches.

@@alexzadrazil7242 - BIG FACTS! Just like thousands of Irish religious went out all over Europe and founded Churches. The British Church and the Irish Church were indeed part of the European Church; different rites, but in full communion with Rome. This is a sincere attempt to erase the fact that the English Church was indeed Catholic.

Which 800 years are you speaking of? The Church between the Apostles and Whitby is likely only as much as 600 or so years - but the church was loosely organized among tribal lines of the various germanic people in British Isles. Of this period, our historical information is limited - Bede is a great resource, but a compiler mostly. Some regions are converted - for example the Irish Picts under St. Columba, but that is not the same as saying the entire British Islands were a wholly united church. There is undoubtedly a Christian presence with apostolic origin traceable back through the Celtic Church, but no single institution historically dominated the larger, wider region British Isles until William the Conquerer. The period between Synod of Whitby and King Alfred which is only ~200 years. Consider that Whitby (7th Century)is the major point in which Roman tradition is first introduced into the English Church, yet the English church remains largely a confederation of churches until the Vikings basically take over all of the Angles, Jutes, and Saxon territories in England and Wales. Under Alfred, the Vikings are deterred and the English church is united as a new "Angul Saxnia" people. While Alfred has a strong allegiance to the Pope of Rome, it did not stay pro-Roman in England for long. Coinciding with the timeline of the Great Schism, the Pope allows the Normans under William the Conquerer to invade and reform the English church. Strangely enough, the Normans (Norse-men, Vikings) claimed the crown based on their historic presence in England prior to Alfred. (This is of course a very simplified summary of the history up until 1100. From 1100 to Henry I, much of this history will be a back and forth between the Pope and English Crown until the Reformation of Henry VIII. Consider that William II banished Archbishop Anselm for his support of the Pope, who is then brought back by Henry I. Then it is Henry II who fights with Thomas A Becket for his papal loyalty in the 12th century. Then the Magna Carta under the reign of King John comes which earned a papal bull by Pope Innocent III. By the time we get to the reign of Henry VIII in 1509, the only common tradition known by the crown is that of Popes and English Kings fighting over jurisdiction. Save the short reign of Bloody Mary, the English Church has it single longest history as a Protestant Church from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I to today, which marks out over 450 years.

@@FrSteveMacias wow amazing historical knowledge

@@FrSteveMacias - it may not have been a Roman or Latin rite in Ireland and the British Isles but it was certainly Catholic. Is your position that the early British church was not Catholic but rather its own sect of Christianity?

@@ragnardanneskajold1880 - Catholic in that they were in communion with the Church of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Yet not subordinate to Roman Catholic jurisdiction, tradition, or custom.

@@FrSteveMacias - In full communion with Rome but not subject to the Popes authority? So a type of Sui iuris that isn’t in history? A Sui Iuris that was fully autonomous, a proto anglican church that DEFINITELY did not originate in Roman Catholicism? Is that your thesis? Why were so many British going to Ireland for religious instruction? Joyce and Cahill document it well in their books and those Irish certainly went out in to Europe beginning in the 6th century, in particular in France. France was certainly under Papal Jurisdiction. I see what you are attempting and have seen North Irish protestants do the same thing- suggesting there was a proto protestant Church that lived underground and that all the English were part of before during and after the Norman conquest. That this mysterious English Church wasn’t subject to Papal jurisdiction, it was autocephalous, and didn’t get or need authorization from Rome or any of the other Holy Sees. Just simply doesn’t stand up to history sir. Just like the Irish protestants in Antrim, attempting to claim that this autocephalous Irish church of the 5th Century was its own entity that coalesced from the ether by Gods divine command…..yet it was the Romans that first brought Christianity to England, and a probable Romano-Britain in Saint Patrick that brought it to Ireland. While there is no doubt there was a great deal of autonomy in England and Ireland prior to the Norman conquest, there is also no doubt that the clergy in Britain and Ireland were well aware that the Pope in Rome was head of the church….in fact in the 7th century I believe, a pope sent a delegation to England and Ireland to reel them in as it were…..I’ll research and find that reference. Nonetheless, you assertion isn’t completely without merit but it certainly doesn’t tell the entire story and no there was no proto protestant exclusive autocephalous British church that survived underground for centuries only to come out of the shadows as it were once Henry decided it would be so. (However, the CofE certainly did drive Irish Catholics underground hunted and killed Priests, penal laws, hedgerow masses, etc)

Its been at the parish for about 60 years... No idea!

ACNA is in full communion with the Church of Nigeria - the largest jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion.

@@FrSteveMacias thanks for the quick response. Btw I'm a former seminarian of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm 50 now and still searching. I feel I may still have a vocation beyond that of laity.

@@FrSteveMacias Has your church looked into being in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church?

@@news_internationale2035 they are. The only issue I see is the ordination of women as Priests in the ACNA( no bishops are women).

​@@Katholikos78Certain ACNA dioceses allow the ordination of women but not all. The ACNA does not allow for the ordination of female bishops.

Keep praying for Canterbury and the CofE & there is always the Free Church of England - to which I am associated through the Reformed Episcopal Church. fcofe.org.uk/

Glad it was helpful!

The book by Father Andrew Stephen Damick, "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" is excellent to show the history of the Church and all its history.

Anglican and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology are very similar, but Anglicanism is also blessed to inherit the Western theological heritage of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Anselm of Canterbury - whose influence are clearly seen in our formularies and prayerbook.

@@FrSteveMacias Thanks for the response Father Steve!

@@innocentgreen1338 Eastern Orthodoxy is the true form of Christianity

@@evanstavropoulos2993 😊🙏❤️☦️

protestants fall into teo categories...reformationsits, which hold that the church always existed, and restorationists

I speak as a convinced Catholic. The necessity of joining oneself to apostolic Christianity, and not to a late-coming Protestant sect, is clear to all unbiased observers, Christian or not. It sounds like it’s becoming clear to you too. To convince you of the necessity of communion with the Pope, and dispute the usual Eastern Orthodox talking points about doctrine, unity and the Church Fathers, I would give you to read: - Fr. Vladimir Soloviev (Russian Orthodox priest), “Russia and the Universal Church” - Cardinal J.H. Newman (now a Saint), “Essay on the Development of Doctrine” - Brother Aidan Nichols, O.P., “Rome and the Eastern Churches”

Episcopal Church has modernized too much.

Wendy: Our Lord, Jesus, established One Church. He personally chose twelve men, taught them His plan for our salvation, and ordered the to "...go out and teach all nations...". They passed His teachings down to us, throughout all the ages. That Church He established is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

@@alhilford2345 I am part of the satanic temple I like their motto and the 7 tenants. Hail Satan!

There's an alternative, The Anglican Church In North America.

I had no idea about church history but have been reading up. We can learn so much delving into the writings and history of the early church especially the importance of the Eucharist. I read yesterday that that back in the early days a third of all tithes were given to the poor! That's something the modern churches would never dream of doing. I pray you will find the truth and freedom you desire after leaving the Norman church.

What made you convert?

Bad Catholics make good Protestants. Good Protestants make great Catholics!

@@steven21736 serveral reasons from different beliefs on the Eucharist to not being on board with mandatory clerical celibacy

@@joecool3477 there is no mandatory celibacy in the Catholic Church only in the Latin rite. The catholic and orthodox view of the Eucharist is the one of the early church

Even Roman Catholicism doesn’t have ALL 100% celibate clergy. Some are married. And they are thinking of changing that rule anyway.

🙏

Bless Fr. Dan - would love to visit and worship with you some time!

Thanks for your comments, are you familiar with the book that you share a name with?

@@FrSteveMacias I wasn't until my friend google searched me and told me this was a book! I'll have to read it.

@@awkwardanglican7474 Bishop Hunter (its author) confirmed me and my wife as Anglicans years ago.

@@FrSteveMacias Wow! Gosh - I hope he won't be upset I took his title! Though I'm sure he is much more widely read than I am watched. Ha! Wouldn't be difficult. Just been looking at the blurb - sounds like a really good read.

There's not much evidence that celts were "pushed".The heavily romanised Britons (of future England) adopted Anglo-Saxon languages as they moved in. Maybe Brittonic aristocracy were pushed out ,but most modern day english people are predominantly Brythonic with a minority of Anglo-Saxon admixture.

Episcopalian simply means the church is episcopal, or governed by bishops. The use of the word "Anglican" is to distinguish the Episcopalian bodies/ provinces/ dioceses that are not affiliated with the Episcopal Church or TECUSA due to reasons like liberalism, homosexuality, etc.

For example, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), the Convocations of Anglicans in North America (CANA). There are also bodies that use the word Episcopal yet not part of the TEC for example the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA)

During the independance era, the local Anglican body in the USA wanted to distinguish themselves from the Church of England. They can't use the word Anglican simply because Anglican means "of England". This is why they adopted the word Episcopalian and since then the Episcopal CHurch of the USA is born (formerly called the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA)

This distinction is based on American and English history. The Church of England (Ecclesia Anglicana) is certainly episcopal (ruled by bishops) and Anglican (of England). But the nomenclature "episcopal" came to America via the Church of Scotland, which in the 17th century deposed the bishops and embraced a radical reformed presbyterian polity. The entire history of the Scottish "nonjuring" bishops is very important to Anglican theology, but the TLDR is that this eventually led to the creation of another "Anglican" Church in Scotland called the "Scottish Episcopal Church." After the American Revolution, the Church of England had not and would not grant Bishops to the victorious American colonial churches, so Samuel Seabury (Yes, the "Westchester Farmer" Seabury) appealed to the Bishops in Scotland and thus the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States" traces its Episcopal (or Bishop) lineage directly through the Scottish Episcopalians, rather than the English Anglicans. The deference to the Scottish Episcopal Church can be seen in more than the name, but also in the American Prayerbook, which follows the Scottish rite and theology closer than the English 1662 tradition. When the Protestant Episcopal Church (USA) began its revision of the Prayerbook in the 1960's and altering/tolerating changes on moral and historical issues - conservative Episcopalians that broke took the name "Anglican" to express that they were not breaking from the Episcopal Church, but returning back to their historic roots. I believe this was first done by Bp. Dees (Anglican Orthodox Church) who helped start our "Anglican" parish in 1968 - at a time when the "Anglican Communion" elsewhere was still rather conservative. Then in the 70's with the Congress of St. Louis, the continuing movements leave the Episcopal Church in large numbers to start many American "Anglican" jurisdictions like the Anglican Catholic Church and Anglican Province of Christ the King, etc. Then in the 2009, you see the "Anglican realignment" movement with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) bringing more Episcopalians out to form the Anglican Church in North America. (The Nigerian Bishops trace their lineage through the Church of England directly; hence Anglican.) Many of folks in this latests American movement were either Episcopal Dioceses or churches that "realigned" with the conservative African Churches and thus became "Anglican."

@@FrSteveMacias thank you

If you mean the Reformed Theology of the 39 Articles, then yes, absolutely!

Of course! There's a reason why Reformed Theology has also been referred to as "Augustianism."

I feel like Luther, had he turned East, would have moved Germany etc. into Orthodoxy.So much or Roman thought is of the form of Medievel accretion.

@@johnfleming7879 Yes, I believe a change was needed within the Roman Catholicism of his time. Was a pity he didn't turn toward Orthodoxy instead of "reforming" western Christianity. I suppose it was much harder to contact and learn from Orthodox elders then as compared to modern times.

@@twotetah The theologian of Tübingen made an exchange with patriarch Jeromy II, but it was not fruitful. Afterall, Lutheranism is it own tradition, not the Orthodoxy of the seven Oecumenical Councils.

Glad you found me! My email is “Steve (at) Stevemacias.com” and I’m now in Los Altos, CA near Palo Alto and Stanford University.

Appreciate it Michael - although I hope not!

@@FrSteveMacias It is common knowledge in the Anglican Church that 1066 was when Papal rule was first established in England under William of Normandy, not 1000 as you said. 1534 was when Henry VIII repudiated Papal rule, not 1533 as you said.

@@johnpolitis3956 Valid. I'm not a member of the ACNA (although I am Anglican), you have to recognize that he's a priest, not an academic or historian. He's obviously doing his best to summarize a large volume of Christian history.

Bless you my new friend!

Do you use english as a liturgucal language?

Ouch. But fair.

@@FrSteveMacias in a few hundred years who is going to say "it's always been that way?" We need a greater reformation.

@@FrSteveMacias MAKE THE ANGLICAN CHURCH GREAT AGAIN

@@FrSteveMacias yes please do this type of video, otherwise LGBT will end up imposing their own triumphalism like they do on everything else. St Paul would have approved it. How do you come up with English being Celtic? Anglo Celtic maybe?

Lots of mixing between what we now call Scotland, Wales, England, and Ireland - thanks to different Norman and Viking Conquests.

🙏

A unique tradition, but which surprisingly and wonderfully is a real return to the Apostolic roots and the intended progress of the Church of Christ. There is nothing wrong with Anglicanism of the Reformation! Scripture proves this! We also have to hold fast that Reformation principle and from it not depart!

The Truth cannot be reformed, and since the Truth dwells in the Church, then neither can the Church be reformed either

Age of the Earth is doctrinal issue when it relates to a historical Adam and Christ's redemption of mankind. Anglicans have a long historical of defending a Biblical Chronology from the Venerable Bede to Archbishop Ussher.

Fr. Steve Macias I see. So one could believe in an “old earth” and even 100,000 years of human existence as long as one still holds to a literal Adam and Eve? I think this is what NT Wright believes.

Bots will be bots!

Celtic Christians [eg St David, Patrick, etc] were not so much into framework/hierarchy. Deeply mystical. Thus not in a position to argue at Whitby.

The Ancient world did not have our same notion of the individualism. Corporate identities were very important based on culture or nation or religion - as they are in the Bible too. Rather than attempting to anachronistically read our current paradigms into history, we ought to recognize the providential hand of the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church - whether is was Constantine the Great or King Alfred or even Henry VIII.

@@FrSteveMacias I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that my understanding of how the church has constantly been corrupted by cozying up with worldly leaders and getting distracted by political power, money, land, etc. has not always ended in tragedy? I'm just a layman and probably way too influenced by my time and place but it seems to me that many small theological differences were coopted by secular princes and turned into big differences simply to serve secular political goals.

Yeah that’s y to

Examples?

@@FrSteveMacias Celtic Anglicans? The Celtic Anglicans theory supposes that Celtic Christianity was established as early as 37 A.D. by “wandering clergy” who followed the Roman trade routes through Gaul (present-day France). Other Celtic-Coptic believers think that the first evangelists came to western Britain by boat from Egypt. The most popular legend says that the apostle Philip, along with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea, took a boat to Marseilles. Mary Magdalene stayed in France and Joseph of Arimathea went on to establish Christianity in Britain. This pre-Nicene, monastic form of Christianity is supposed to have been spiritually and serenely unconcerned with troublesome things such as hierarchy, dogma, and doctrine. The most important.aspects of “Celtic Orthodoxy” seem to be its British-ness, its antiquity, and its historical independence from Rome. As the web site of the “Holy Celtic Church” claims, “Because of its autonomy and geographical isolation, the Celtic Church remained uniquely uncorrupted by Hellenistic Greek philosophy or Roman jurisprudence.” Anglicans and the “Celtic Church” I thought the Celtic Orthodox church was nothing more than one of those eccentric forms of Christianity that inhabit the twilight zones of Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations. I discovered that an increasing number of mainstream Anglicans believe the Celtic Christianity myth. I was surprised to hear my Anglican and Episcopal friends say, “Of course Anglicanism comes from the Celtic church. It was established long before Rome interfered.” They may not buy into the whole theory of Joseph of Arimathea coming from Scotland or the Coptic monks importing their religion to Wales and Cornwall, but Anglicans have a vague but certain feeling that their church has its roots in a spiritually sublime, ancient church that was always independent of Roman authority. This theory allows Anglicans to sustain the myth that there are three ancient apostolic churches: Rome, the Orthodox, and themselves. It also helps them to defend their continued independence from Roman authority: “We are descendents of the first British Christians. They existed happily for six hundred years independent of Rome, and we are simply part of that same stream of ancient apostolic Christianity.” Just the Facts, Ma’am There is no evidence that Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain. Nor is there any evidence that Coptic monks founded Celtic Christianity. The best the supporters of this theory can do is to point out similarities between Celtic manuscript illumination and Coptic manuscripts. The idea that Celtic Christianity sprang up on its own, independent of Rome, just doesn’t fit the facts. But we do have clear evidence that Christianity in Britain was, from the first, Roman Christianity. To pin it down we have to look at what happened in the Roman Empire the first few decades after the death of Christ. Ten years after the Crucifixion of Christ, Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next 350 years, the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies came Roman religions, and one of them was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain, therefore, were Roman Christians. Christian inscriptions found on crude Roman pottery in Britain dating from this period suggest that the first Christians were poor people-probably Roman soldiers or slaves. The documentary evidence comes from Tertullian and Origen, both writing in the second century. That they knew of the Church in Britain shows that it was sufficiently well founded, large, and connected with the rest of the Church that Catholics in northern Africa knew of it. The evidence for Roman Christianity in Britain is overwhelming by the time of the fourth century. The first British martyr, St. Alban, was killed for his faith in 304. There must have been a well-established hierarchy because it is recorded that the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln attended the Council of Arles in 314. The British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359. The archeological evidence for Roman Christianity in this period is found everywhere in Britain. There are Chi-Rho monograms scratched in third century pottery, a ceramic plaque with thePater Noster inscribed on it, mosaic floors with Christian symbols, even an image of Christ. There are remains of Christian chapels, Romano-British Christian burial sites, and the discovery made in 1975 of a fourth-century silver chalice with Christian markings, which shows that Mass was not only celebrated in Roman Britain but celebrated in sumptuous style. Declaration of Independence? Anglicans of all stripes cling to the notion of their independent Celtic Christian origins because it seems to ratify their continued independence from Rome: If the ancient British church was independent, then they have a right to continue that tradition. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the first Christians in Britain were Roman. As such they would have looked homeward-Romeward-for their cultural allegiance and their religious allegiance. Roman British Christians converted some of the locals, but what happened after the Romans withdrew from Britain around the year 410? Did the British church suddenly declare independence from Roman authority? Is this when the independent Celtic church was established? On the contrary. After the departure of the Roman legions in the early fifth century, British Christians relied even more on their Roman Church contacts. This is the time of the Pelagian heresy, and in 429 a British deacon appealed to the Pope for help combating it. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Germain of Auxerre to go on a mission to Britain, accompanied by St. Patrick. He stayed there and established seminaries. This is clearly an example of not only Rome asserting authority in Britain but also the British church asking for that authority. A Man on a Mission Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome. Even then, the missionary endeavors to Ireland continued from Roman origins and not from Coptic Egypt. St. Patrick, the great apostle of Ireland, was born in Scotland of noble Roman parents. His mother was a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours. His origins and training were all from the Catholic Church, always loyal to Rome. When he went to Ireland in 433 he didn’t discover an “ancient Celtic church” but bloodthirsty Druids who needed converting. It is true that Patrick’s Celtic church developed in relative isolation from Rome for about 150 years, but in Britain it was soon to be reconciled. In 597, St. Augustine arrived in southeast England, sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Eventually his missionaries encountered Patrick’s missionaries, who had been evangelizing England from the north and west. When they met, there were some differences of discipline. At the synod of Whitby in 664 the matter was debated, and the Celtic contingent bowed to the authority of St. Peter in the person of the Pope. Submission to Peter There is no evidence that the Anglican church was founded on some pure, serene, and ancient apostolic church that existed in Britain for 600 years before the arrival of St. Augustine. On the contrary, it was started by Romans, it converted the locals, and it remained linked to Rome even after the legions departed from Britain. After that, the missionary efforts to the British Isles were of Roman origin. For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But they remained aware of, and faithful to, the See of Peter. As soon as it had the chance to be physically united with the See of Peter, the Celtic church did so. The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?

The word “Anglican” originates in Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, a phrase from the Magna Carta dated 15 June 1215, meaning “the Anglican Church shall be free.” Members of the Church of England and its “Anglicanism” are called Anglicans. The word “Episcopal” is from the New Testament Greek word for Bishop or overseer (episkopos). A Church led by bishops has an Episcopal Polity. The Church of England was the Church in the American Colonies, although it did not grant them their own Bishops. Despite being the Colonial Church of men like President George Washington and Patrick Henry, the post-revolution Anglican church was greatly weakened by the departure of many Anglican Loyalists for Canada and England and by anti-English sentiment among American colonials. The American clergy sent Rev. Samuel Seabury to England in 1783 to seek ordination as their bishop. The English church refused to ordain him because it required its bishops to swear loyalty to the English king, which Seabury could not do. So Seabury turned to the other “episcopal” church in Scotland. A centuries old rivalry between Scotland and England came to a union through the reign of King James I. But by the end of the 17th century, Scotland had abolished and expelled all the Anglican Bishops during the presbyterian “Glorious Revolution.” This was altered in 1707 as the Scottish and English merge together to form a single “Kingdom of Great Britain.” This allowed the re-establishment of the “Episcopal Church in Scotland” (and created the first version of the famous union jack flag). This meant that Bishops who had refused to submit (the non-jurors) to the previous Scottish government were now restored in a state-sanctioned, but separate “Scottish Episcopal Church.” This Scottish Episcopal Church had no requirement for an oath to the king and happily made Seabury the first American Anglican bishop in 1784. The Anglican Church was therefore established again in the American colonies through Aberdeen as the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States” - in communion with both the Churches of England and Scotland. Thus the “Episcopal” nomenclature becomes synonymous with Anglicanism in America while also paying homage to Seabury’s lineage through the Scottish nonjurors. The American Church has therefore been autocephalous (or self-governing) since its inception with its own prayerbook and disestablishment from the English crown. I have short blog of this on my website: www.stevemacias.com/are-you-anglican-or-episcopalian/

@@FrSteveMacias So this is how the episcopalian church czme out ofvthe anglican? I've heard people referring to the episcopalian church and wondered what it was. But is the anglican in communion with the orthodox church?

That's not true. Something can be "good" but not *all* the good. Luther could have been right on the main issue but failed to grasp other issues. Luther could have been right on justification but wrong on the lord's supper or on the Jews

@@stephenglasse9756 Lutherans do not follow the views and private opinions of Luther, including his deplorable hatred of the Jewish people. Rather, it is only the Lutheran confessions held in the Book of Concord that we hold to be authoritative. Luther and Melanchthon were able to restore the Church back to its Patristic roots, but we do not hold that they were infallible men that we must adhere to all of their individual writings and decisions. Essentially Luther is not our Protestant Pope

@@DeFyYing I agree with you. I was responding to the guy who said Luther was used by the devil.

How is he an adulterer? The sin of the Greeks isn't a sin of infidelity.

Well we are the best of brits us English so shush

@@calumcain2355 nah

Beloved, I don't know you in person but God knows you. God ministered to me in a revelation when I was on your profile to see things around you,I saw blessings but spiritual attacks holding onto them,in prayers,i saw a woman in the realm of the spirit monitoring and plotting delay in your life, with an evil mirror, and with a motive to destroy. But as I speak to you now her time is up, Render hand of favour with Anything you can afford or give to the motherless, sow it to ( MOTHERLESS FOUNDATION) in Edo state nigeria before 2DAYS with faith, as I Rise my hands towards heaven and pray for you they shall serve as point of contact wherever you are, you will receive double portion of grace to excel and total restoration of breakthrough in your life and in the life of your family. Ask for their acct details and help them call the MD in charge of the orphanage to get their details on (WhatsApp or call them now on: +2349046099547 tell him I sent you. For it is not by might nor by power but of the spirit saith the lord (zechariah 4:6). You shall testify to the Glory of God in your life. God bless you

@@bishopdavidoyedepo5538 You know that nobody here falls for that Right? Comment Reported

Most modern "English " are only up 30% Anglo-Saxon (and only in places like East anglia).so its quite wrong to say that the "English are not Celtic".when they predominantly are in fact Celtic-or Brythonic.

The Celts were like you say not English they were ancient Britains. The Anglo Saxons arrived after the Romans left Britain and were named the English. They were converted by Augustine. Apparently the Celtic churches were not convert ing people so Rome for the job done. This seems rather misinformed...

@@danielkent4567 They weren't converting the English, no

Wonderful! Bless you both!

I am an Anglican, and a Monastic. I'm not sure why you think that a lack of Monastics would invalidate a branch of the Church. Would you elaborate on that?

The true Church is that which confesses the belief in Christ and gives the most important Sacraments which are the Baptism and Eucharist.

@@ionutmihailbarta6677 : The true Church is the Church that Our Lord Jesus Himself established. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

@@alhilford2345 not necessarily Roman in the sense of being I communion with Rome

Celtic Anglicans? The Celtic Anglicans theory supposes that Celtic Christianity was established as early as 37 A.D. by “wandering clergy” who followed the Roman trade routes through Gaul (present-day France). Other Celtic-Coptic believers think that the first evangelists came to western Britain by boat from Egypt. The most popular legend says that the apostle Philip, along with Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea, took a boat to Marseilles. Mary Magdalene stayed in France and Joseph of Arimathea went on to establish Christianity in Britain. This pre-Nicene, monastic form of Christianity is supposed to have been spiritually and serenely unconcerned with troublesome things such as hierarchy, dogma, and doctrine. The most important.aspects of “Celtic Orthodoxy” seem to be its British-ness, its antiquity, and its historical independence from Rome. As the web site of the “Holy Celtic Church” claims, “Because of its autonomy and geographical isolation, the Celtic Church remained uniquely uncorrupted by Hellenistic Greek philosophy or Roman jurisprudence.” Anglicans and the “Celtic Church” I thought the Celtic Orthodox church was nothing more than one of those eccentric forms of Christianity that inhabit the twilight zones of Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations. I discovered that an increasing number of mainstream Anglicans believe the Celtic Christianity myth. I was surprised to hear my Anglican and Episcopal friends say, “Of course Anglicanism comes from the Celtic church. It was established long before Rome interfered.” They may not buy into the whole theory of Joseph of Arimathea coming from Scotland or the Coptic monks importing their religion to Wales and Cornwall, but Anglicans have a vague but certain feeling that their church has its roots in a spiritually sublime, ancient church that was always independent of Roman authority. This theory allows Anglicans to sustain the myth that there are three ancient apostolic churches: Rome, the Orthodox, and themselves. It also helps them to defend their continued independence from Roman authority: “We are descendents of the first British Christians. They existed happily for six hundred years independent of Rome, and we are simply part of that same stream of ancient apostolic Christianity.” Just the Facts, Ma’am There is no evidence that Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain. Nor is there any evidence that Coptic monks founded Celtic Christianity. The best the supporters of this theory can do is to point out similarities between Celtic manuscript illumination and Coptic manuscripts. The idea that Celtic Christianity sprang up on its own, independent of Rome, just doesn’t fit the facts. But we do have clear evidence that Christianity in Britain was, from the first, Roman Christianity. To pin it down we have to look at what happened in the Roman Empire the first few decades after the death of Christ. Ten years after the Crucifixion of Christ, Emperor Claudius successfully invaded Britain. Over the next 350 years, the Romans established a thriving colony in virtually the whole of Britain. With the Roman armies came Roman religions, and one of them was the new religion of Christianity. The first Christians in Britain, therefore, were Roman Christians. Christian inscriptions found on crude Roman pottery in Britain dating from this period suggest that the first Christians were poor people-probably Roman soldiers or slaves. The documentary evidence comes from Tertullian and Origen, both writing in the second century. That they knew of the Church in Britain shows that it was sufficiently well founded, large, and connected with the rest of the Church that Catholics in northern Africa knew of it. The evidence for Roman Christianity in Britain is overwhelming by the time of the fourth century. The first British martyr, St. Alban, was killed for his faith in 304. There must have been a well-established hierarchy because it is recorded that the bishops of London, York, and Lincoln attended the Council of Arles in 314. The British bishops were also present at the Council of Rimini in 359. The archeological evidence for Roman Christianity in this period is found everywhere in Britain. There are Chi-Rho monograms scratched in third century pottery, a ceramic plaque with thePater Noster inscribed on it, mosaic floors with Christian symbols, even an image of Christ. There are remains of Christian chapels, Romano-British Christian burial sites, and the discovery made in 1975 of a fourth-century silver chalice with Christian markings, which shows that Mass was not only celebrated in Roman Britain but celebrated in sumptuous style. Declaration of Independence? Anglicans of all stripes cling to the notion of their independent Celtic Christian origins because it seems to ratify their continued independence from Rome: If the ancient British church was independent, then they have a right to continue that tradition. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the first Christians in Britain were Roman. As such they would have looked homeward-Romeward-for their cultural allegiance and their religious allegiance. Roman British Christians converted some of the locals, but what happened after the Romans withdrew from Britain around the year 410? Did the British church suddenly declare independence from Roman authority? Is this when the independent Celtic church was established? On the contrary. After the departure of the Roman legions in the early fifth century, British Christians relied even more on their Roman Church contacts. This is the time of the Pelagian heresy, and in 429 a British deacon appealed to the Pope for help combating it. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Germain of Auxerre to go on a mission to Britain, accompanied by St. Patrick. He stayed there and established seminaries. This is clearly an example of not only Rome asserting authority in Britain but also the British church asking for that authority. A Man on a Mission Around 450, the Saxons started to invade a weakened Britain, and for the next 150 years (until 597) the pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. The persecuted Christian minority fled west to Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland, and south to Brittany in France. It was only during this period that the Celtic church existed in isolation from the authority structures of Rome. Even then, the missionary endeavors to Ireland continued from Roman origins and not from Coptic Egypt. St. Patrick, the great apostle of Ireland, was born in Scotland of noble Roman parents. His mother was a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours. His origins and training were all from the Catholic Church, always loyal to Rome. When he went to Ireland in 433 he didn’t discover an “ancient Celtic church” but bloodthirsty Druids who needed converting. It is true that Patrick’s Celtic church developed in relative isolation from Rome for about 150 years, but in Britain it was soon to be reconciled. In 597, St. Augustine arrived in southeast England, sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great. Eventually his missionaries encountered Patrick’s missionaries, who had been evangelizing England from the north and west. When they met, there were some differences of discipline. At the synod of Whitby in 664 the matter was debated, and the Celtic contingent bowed to the authority of St. Peter in the person of the Pope. Submission to Peter There is no evidence that the Anglican church was founded on some pure, serene, and ancient apostolic church that existed in Britain for 600 years before the arrival of St. Augustine. On the contrary, it was started by Romans, it converted the locals, and it remained linked to Rome even after the legions departed from Britain. After that, the missionary efforts to the British Isles were of Roman origin. For about 150 years the Catholic Church in England, like the Church in China today, existed under persecution and in isolation from the seat of authority. But they remained aware of, and faithful to, the See of Peter. As soon as it had the chance to be physically united with the See of Peter, the Celtic church did so. The question for Anglicans and Episcopalians who see the Celtic Christians as their ancestors is: If the Celts submitted to Rome the first chance they got, why don’t you follow their example?

You are missing the point. Roman Catholicism as we know it today did not exist until after Charlemagne and even then the real division occurred in 1054, so prior to that we had a native Orthodox Church in which the later Church of England had roots

@@paulking952 But to call it "orthodox", how is that accurate. Were they calling themselves orthodox? Surely there was one universal Christian church before that time and certainly its connections were more likely closer to Rome than to Byzantium or what would become the orthodox world.

@@gordonblues843 I suppose in theory there was only one church to begin with and this started with Jesus and the Apostles. Then as the church spread certainly initially it would have been Apostolic and that includes the way Christianity came to Ancient Briton. So you could say at that point it was orthodox or right thinking. Even when Augustine came, it was still right thinking or orthodox although by this time Rome was starting to drift from Right thinking. I guess that come the reformation and the split with the Roman Church we have gone back to our orthodox roots. I am no expert but I think Anglicans adopt the Nicene Creed and agree with the 7 ecumenical councils and so fundamentally our view is orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox would say you also need holy tradition and sources of authority but we have these also although they are not always the same as those used in Eastern Orthodoxy. Like I say, I am no expert

@@paulking952Most Anglicans only accept 4 Ecumenical Councils totally and some of 5 and 6. A small minority accept the 7th.

Latin came to the British Isles before Christ. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 BC.

@@FrSteveMacias My comment was in reference to you claiming that one of the distintivos of Celtic Christianity was their language. Since their writings are overwhelmingly recorded in Latin I don’t see how that particular distinctive is a strong case. In general I agree with you (that Celtic Christianity was distinct from Roman Christianity), but I don’t think that particular point about the language was very well made in the video. Otherwise I thought it was great.

@@joachimjustinmorgan4851 - Appreciate the note. While Latin has always been an ecclesiastical language in the West, the idea of local rites only in Latin is a later development (Truly only realized in reaction to the Anglican BCP at Trent). Even as late the 10th century we have examples like the Leofric Missal and Book of Deer as examples of Non-Latin liturgies. Even the famous Stowe missal includes remnants of the earlier Irish tracts and rubrics.

​@@FrSteveMacias: Latin as an ecclesiastical language is hardly a later developement, it was already the common language for the Church in the mid fourth century, when Saint Jerome was commissioned to translate the Old and New books of the Bible into the Vulgate. It has been the official language of the Catholic Church ever since.

Anglicanism has weighed in historically, see the work of Archbishop James Ussher.

@@FrSteveMacias I see, thanks for the reply. Yes I am familiar with his work. I just wasn't clear as to whether it was a required belief for ACNA members. Thanks for clarifying this.

@@FrSteveMacias Is Archbishop Ussher’s precise dating (6 pm, October 22, 4004 BC) something you and other Anglicans stand by?

Depends on when, honestly. Why?

@@barelyprotestant5365 Just because his journey amounted to a revision of the view of Roman Catholicism traditional within English Anglicanism up his day. He came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church (he did not address the issues of the Orthodox) was in complete continuity with the Church of the first four centuries.

@@DonalLeader of course we as Anglicans disagree.

Cardinal Newman would certainly recognize this history, but would latter embrace a view of theology that allows the development (or change) of historical doctrines in the Roman Church.

​@@FrSteveMacias: I disagree... And so would Saint John Henry Newman... Catholic Doctrine cannot change. It was given to the world by Our Lord Jesus Himself, and can never be abrogated. That is what distinguishes the Catholic Church from the heretical 'denominations'.

You should leave and join the Continuing Anglican Movement.

I'm in the same boat. My episcopal church is more conservative and anglocatholic than the ACNA. If I'm gonna leave I'd rather just go to Rome. I'm already a fake catholic, why be a fake anglican?

As far as conservative Anglicans and the Orthodox...... they are similar with different traditions. They both hold to the councils. Anglicans are slightly closer to Roman Catholicism. I’m Anglican and venerate the BVM. I also cross myself and believe many things the Catholics do. For I am catholic

The Thirty Nine Articles include the Filioque. Presumably "Anglican Orthodox" would aim to exclude them. The Church of England recognises John Fisher and Thomas More as saints. Orthodoxy sees them as filioquist heretics.

Thomas Cranmer visited the German Lutherans during his time under Henry VIII and brought many Augustinian reforms back to England.

@@FrSteveMacias So your answer would be yes - the Reformation was Apostolic in its objectives (hence the 'sola's'). Cranmer, I understand, began with a Lutheran approach to the sacraments, which appeared in his earliest rendition of the BCP, but was adjusted later. Interestingly, Elizabeth I reverted back to the earliest version during her reign.

The Church was One in Patrick's day Constantinople took a prime position . Rome was one of the main centres.

@@mavisemberson8737 Constantinople was a major position in the Church, but Rome had the First Among Equals - the Pope of Rome (there is another Pope in Alexandria; at least that is what he is called to this day) was always considered the major and prime position of the Church (that's from Orthodox History). When the Roman Patriarch (Pope) begin making rules without consulting the other bishops and trying to force the rules on the other Patriarchs, things began falling apart.

@@Katholikos78 Yes, I am aware of that and the Roman Church says that the Orthodox don't accept the "Primacy of Peter". As I told two priests who said that to me was that they were wrong. The Orthodox, and other Churches, did not accept the SUPREMECY of the Pope. As you may have seen, we Orthodox are having a problem again with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Very sad indeed.

@@BpGregor I disagree. I accept and am behind the EP. Not a fan of anything Russian including their third Rome nonsense.

@@Katholikos78 Disagree as you wish. Doesn't change facts. Your privilege to disagree and I respect that privilege.

Google Anglican Archbishop James Ussher’s Biblical chronology.

@@FrSteveMacias Thank you, but I don't need to do that. Knowing the approximate century in which he lived and wrote is sufficient. I'm sure he also believed the Earth was the center of the solar system.

@@corym8358 Not true. A Heliocentric view in the 17th century didn’t conflict. A notable example is Kepler, a contemporary of Ussher, who held the same view as Ussher. But that’s a different topic.

@@FrSteveMacias Oh my God you’re one of those

Why would you do that when he has faith?

​​​@@venomvandal5443: Faith in his own interpretation of Scripture and doctrine for sure, but a teacher should be teaching the truth. I recommend: "RELIGION AND THE RISE OF WESTERN CULTURE" Christopher Dawson, New York, Image Books) "A HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION" (William Cobbett, Tan Books) "THE STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS" (Eamon Duffy, Yale University Press) "FAITH OF THE FATHERS" (Joseph Pierce, Ignatius Press) Just for a start.

No such thing as a Celtic Church, but there were Christians who happened to belong to some of the Celtic tribes, and, since these Christians were also Catholics, they most certainly did have the seven Sacraments. Celtic monasticism spread to Ireland and Northern England, and Saint Columba founded the monastery at Iona in 565 AD. In 585 AD Saint Columbanus founded an abbey at Luxeuil, Burgundy.

All Anglicans/Episcopalians have been self-governing and distinct from the Church of England since the end of the Revolutionary War. The Church of England traces its origin back to the ancient bishops of the British Isles in an unbroken succession through the Protestant Reformation and into the very fabric of the American colonies. The word “Anglican” originates in Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, a phrase from the Magna Carta dated 15 June 1215, meaning “the Anglican Church shall be free.” Members of the Church of England and its “Anglicanism” are called Anglicans. The word “Episcopal” is from the New Testament Greek word for Bishop or overseer (episkopos). A Church led by bishops has an Episcopal Polity. The Church of England was the Church in the American Colonies, although it did not grant them their own Bishops. Despite being the Colonial Church of men like President George Washington and Patrick Henry, the post-revolution Anglican church was greatly weakened by the departure of many Anglican Loyalists for Canada and England and by anti-English sentiment among American colonials. The American clergy sent Rev. Samuel Seabury to England in 1783 to seek consecration as their bishop. The English church refused to consecrate him because it required its bishops to swear loyalty to the English king, which Seabury could not do. So Seabury turned to the other “episcopal” church in Scotland. A centuries old rivalry between Scotland and England came to a union through the reign of King James I. But by the end of the 17th century, Scotland had abolished and expelled all the Anglican Bishops during the presbyterian “Glorious Revolution.” This was altered in 1707 as the Scottish and English merge together to form a single “Kingdom of Great Britain.” This allowed the re-establishment of the “Episcopal Church in Scotland” (and created the first version of the famous union jack flag). This meant that Bishops who had refused to submit (the non-jurors) to the previous Scottish government were now restored in a state-sanctioned, but separate “Scottish Episcopal Church.” This Scottish Episcopal Church had no requirement for an oath to the king and happily made Seabury the first American Anglican bishop in 1784. The Anglican Church was therefore established again in the American colonies through Aberdeen as the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States” - in communion with both the Churches of England and Scotland. Thus the “Episcopal” nomenclature becomes synonymous with Anglicanism in America while also paying homage to Seabury’s lineage through the Scottish nonjurors. The American Church has therefore been autocephalous (or self-governing) since its inception with its own prayerbook and disestablishment from the English crown. In the 19th century, some advocates of ecumenicism urged the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Church of England to return to catholic ritual and toward reunion with Rome. George David Cummins, assisting Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church Diocese of Kentucky, became concerned about the preservation of Protestant, Evangelical, Reformed, and Confessional principles within the church. In 1873, Bishop Cummins drafted the call to organize the Reformed Episcopal Church out from the Protestant Episcopal Church. Contrary to all expectation, the Reformed Episcopal Church has grown into a worldwide family of Churches, with representatives in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Germany, Croatia, France and Australia. In the United Kingdom the Reformed Episcopal Church united in 1927 with The Free Church of England, an older body of Anglican heritage, to form the present day ‘Free Church of England otherwise called the Reformed Episcopal Church’. The Protestant Episcopal Church continued to fracture in the 20th century as it embraced aberrant theological views such as female ordination, homosexual marriage, and departure from the historic prayerbook. As various groups broke from the Protestant Episcopal Church, various federations have attempted to navigate their Anglican identity. Many of the Continuing Churches that broke with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1970s rejected the need for membership in the global Anglican communion. While other Anglican groups sought to re-align their allegiance with the Anglican communion through orthodox Anglican Churches in other parts of the world. The Reformed Episcopal Church embraced both tactics. In the late 1990’s, the REC entered intercommunion with the Anglican Province of America, a continuing Anglican group. And in 2006, the Reformed Episcopal Church joined with The Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas which included the The Anglican Church in America (ACA), The Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), The Diocese of the Holy Cross (DHC) and the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC). In 2005, The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) entered into communion and covenant union with the Reformed Episcopal Church. The Nigerian Anglican churches distanced themselves from the Protestant Episcopal Church after it consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003. Out of the 70 million Anglicans worldwide, Nigeria has the largest Anglican population with over 17 million members. The Nigerian Church began as a 1841 expedition of Church Mission Society members Samuel Ajayi Crowther-who would become Nigeria’s first African Anglican bishop-and Rev. J.F. Schön. In 2009, the REC became a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) covering the United States and Canada, it also includes congregations in Mexico, Guatemala, and Cuba. Representing 30 dioceses, over 1,037 congregations and an estimated membership of 140,000. The ACNA is in communion with the Anglican Communion Churches of Uganda, Nigeria, Egypt, Southeast Asia, Sudan, South Sudan, South America, West Africa, Rwanda, Mynamar, Congo, and Bangladesh. And the orders of priests in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) have been recognized by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The Jurisdiction where I am a priest - The Reformed Episcopal Church has a male-only priesthood and affirms traditional marriage only. (recus.org)

@@FrSteveMacias so your point is you are the valid successor of the celtic church? Have you got that unbroken apostolic succesion from that ancient church? By the way, the notion you are peddling that the celtic church is in opposition or totally independent from the western church was a hoax that has already been debunked by many peer reviewed historical researches at present.

The point of this video is to explain that the Church in England did not derive their historic apostolic authority from Rome or its (later) ultramontanist claims, but previously had a valid Apostolic Line as Rome herself concedes at Whitby. The details of the Synod of Whitby in the 7th century, as discussed in the video, are not debated by the Roman Church.

Where are you getting your information from?

the english church was not out of communion with rome before 1066, who told you this?

@@alhilford2345 Have a look orthodoxwiki.org/Harold_of_England

Then explain Danes.

@@faintvids7352 thats pretty wank, the kings of England had a good relationship with the popes in the years after east west the schism, the king before Harold was made a saint in the catholic church. Remember 1066 is 12 years after the schism, if the church in England was out of communion with the pope for 12 years we would have ample record, but we dont. This kinda conspiracy is only tenable if you are completely ignorant of english history