THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH AND PEOPLE
BOOK THREE - PART THREE
CHAPTER 25: Controversy arises with the Scots over the date of Easter [A.D. 664]
When Bishop Aidan departed this life, he was succeeded in the Bishopric by Finan, who had been consecrated and sent by the Scots. He built a church in the Isle of Lindisfarne suitable for an episcopal see, constructing it, however, not of stone, but of hewn oak thatched with reeds after the Scots manner. It was later dedicated by the most reverend Archbishop Theodore in honour of the blessed I Apostle Peter. But Eadbert, a later Bishop of Lindisfarne, j removed the thatch, and covered both roof and walls with sheets of lead.
About this time there arose a great and recurrent controversy on the observance of Easter, those trained in Kent and Gaul maintaining that the Scottish observance was contrary to that of the universal Church. The most zealous champion of the true Easter was a Scot named Ronan, who had been instructed in Gaul and Italy in the authentic practice of the Church. He disputed against Finan and convinced many, or at least persuaded them to make more careful enquiry into the truth. But he entirely failed to move Finan, a hot-tempered man whom reproof made more obstinate and openly hostile to the truth. James, formerly the deacon of the venerable Archbishop Paulinus, of whom I have spoken, kept the true and Catholic Easter with all whom he could persuade to adopt the right observance. Also Queen Eanfled and her court, having a Kentish priest named Romanus who followed the Catholic practice, observed the customs she had seen in Kent. It is said that the confusion in those days was such that Easter was sometimes kept twice in one year, so that when the King had ended Lent and was keeping Easter, the Queen and her attendants were still fasting and keeping Palm Sunday.
During Aidan's lifetime these differences of Easter observance were patiently tolerated by everyone; for it was realized that, although he was in loyalty bound to retain the customs of those who sent him, he nevertheless laboured diligently to cultivate the faith, piety, and love that marks out God's saints. He was therefore rightly loved by all, even by those who differed from his opinion on Easter, and was held in high respect not only by ordinary folk, but by Honorius of Canterbury and Felix of the East Angles.
When Finan, who followed Aidan as bishop, died, he was succeeded by another Irishman, Colman, under whom an even more serious controversy arose about Easter and also about other rules of Church discipline.
This dispute rightly began to trouble the minds and consciences of many people, who feared that they might have received the name of Christian in vain.
Eventually the matter came to the notice of King Oswy and his son Alchfrid. Oswy thought nothing could be better than the Scots teaching, having been instructed and baptized by the Scots and having a complete grasp of their language. But Alchfrid, who had been instructed in the Faith by Wilfrid - a very learned man who had gone to Rome to study the doctrine of the Church, and spent a long time at Lyons under Dalfin, Archbishop of Gaul, from whom he had received the tonsure - knew that Wilfrid's doctrine was in fact preferable to all the traditions of the Scots.
He had therefore given him a monastery with forty hides of land at In-Hrypum.1 Actually, he had given this not long previously to the adherents of the Scottish customs; but since, when offered the alternative, these preferred to give up the place rather than alter their customs, he then offered it to Wilfrid, whose life and teaching made him a worthy recipient.
About this time, Agilbert, Bishop of the West Saxons, whom I have mentioned, had come to visit the province of the Northumbrians. He was a friend both of King Alchfrid and of Abbot Wilfrid and stayed with them for some time, and at the king's request he made Wilfrid a priest in his monastery. He also had with him a priest named Agatho. So when discussion arose there on the questions of Easter, the tonsure, and various other church matters, it was decided to hold a synod to put an end to this dispute at the monastery of Streanaeshalch, which means The Bay of the Beacon, then ruled by the Abbess Hilda, a woman devoted to God. Both kings, father and son, came to this synod, and so did Bishop Colman with his Scots clergy, and Bishop Agilbert with the priests Agatho and Wilfrid. James and Romanus supported the latter, while Abbess Hilda and her community, together with the venerable bishop Cedd, supported the Scots.
Cedd, who as already mentioned had long ago been ordained by the Scots, acted as a most careful interpreter for both parties at the council.
King Oswy opened by observing that all who served the One God should observe one rule of life, and since they all hoped for one kingdom in heaven, they should not differ in celebrating the sacraments of heaven.
The synod now had the task of determining which was the truer tradition, and this should be loyally accepted by all. He then directed his own bishop Colman to speak first, and to explain his own rite and its origin.
Then Colman said:
“The Easter customs which I observe were Taught me by my superiors, who sent
me here as a bishop; and all our forefathers, men beloved of God, are known to have observed these customs. And lest anyone condemn or reject them as wrong, it is recorded that they owe their origin to the blessed evangelist Saint John, the disciple especially loved by our Lord, and all the churches over which he presided.”
[YES SAINT JOHN THE APOSTLE DID TEACH THE OBSERVANCE OF THE 14TH OF THE FIRST MONTH, THE PASSOVER, AS DONE BY JESUS IN THE GOSPELS; JOHN PASSED THIS ON TO POLYCARP HIS STUDENT OF THE 2ND CENTURY, AND HE PASSED IT ON TO COLYCRATES; BOTH OF THEM DEBATED THIS WITH THE BISHOP OF ROME, BUT COULD NOT PERSUADE THAT BISHOP ON THE CORRECTNESS OBSERVED BY ALL THE CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR (TURKEY). THIS WAS INDEED THE TRUE WAY TO REMEMBER THE LORD’S DEATH, THOUGH AS WE SHALL SEE THE BRITISH CHURCH HAD OVER CENTURIES GOT IT MIXED UP SOME - Keith Hunt]
When he had concluded these and similar arguments, the king directed Agilbert to explain the origin and authority of his own customs. Agilbert replied: “May I request that my disciple the priest Wilfrid be allowed to speak in my place? For we are both in full agreement with all those here present who support the traditions of our Church, and he can explain our view in the English language — more competently and clearly than I can do through an interpreter.”
When Wilfrid had received the king’s command to speak, he said:
Our Easter customs are those that we have seen universally observed in Rome, customs are those that we have served in Rome, where the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered, and are buried. We have also seen the same customs generally observed throughout Italy and Gaul when we travelled through these countries for study and prayer. Furthermore, we have learnt that Easter is observed by men of different nations and languages at one and the same time, in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, and throughout the world wherever the Church of Christ has spread.
[TRUE INDEED FOR BY THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY A.D. ROME WAS OBSERVING THE EASTER CUSTOM OBSERVED BY CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS ALIKE; NATURALLY AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXPANDED IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE THE EASTER TRADITION WAS OBSERVED AS NATIONS WERE CONQUERED SPIRITUALLY BY THE ROMAN CHURCH - Keith Hunt]
The only people who stupidly contend against the whole world are these Scots and their partners in obstinacy the Picts and Britons, who inhabit only a portion of these the two uttermost islands of the ocean.”
[HERE IS THE SARCASM OF A NOW VAIN ROMAN RELIGION AS IT HAD CONQUERED THE OLD ROMAN EMPIRE - Keith Hunt]
In reply to this statement, Colman answered:
“It is strange you call us stupid, when we uphold customs that rest on the authority of so great an Apostle, who was considered worthy to lean on our Lord's breast, and whose great wisdom is acknowledged throughout the world.”
“Far be it from us to charge John with stupidity, Because observed the Law of Moses at a time when the Church followed many Jewish practices, and the Apostles were not able immediately to abrogate the observances of the Law once given by God, lest they gave offence to believers who were Jews (whereas idols, on the other hand, being inventions of the Devil, must be renounced by all converts). For this reason Paul circumcised Timothy, offered sacrifice in the Temple, and shaved his head at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla, for no other reason than that of avoiding offence to the Jews. For James said to Paul: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law." But today, as the Gospel spreads throughout the world, it is unnecessary and indeed unlawful for the faithful to be circumcised or to offer animals to God in sacrifice.
[WE SEE THE CLEVER DECEPTIVE ARGUMENTS OF WHAT WAS STILL ALLOWED UNDER MOSES’ LAW, IF YOU WANTED TO DO TEMPLE RITES, WHILE THE TEMPLE STOOD; NONE OF WHICH WAS NOW REQUIRED UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT, BUT COULD BE DONE WHILE THE TEMPLE AND PRIESTHOOD STILL FUNCTIONED. THE TEMPLE RITES HAD NEVER HAD ANY BEARING ON SALVATION, THEY EARNED YOU NO “BROWNY POINTS” WHATSOEVER FOR BEING “SAVED.” BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT RITE OF REMEMBERING THE LORD’S DEATH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TEMPLE RITES AND SACRIFICES. THIS “NEW” RITE WAS INTRODUCED BY JESUS HIMSELF ON THE NIGHT OF THE 14TH PASSOVER, AS PAUL ALSO AFFIRMED IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:12. THIS NIGHT OF THE 14TH WAS THE ONLY NIGHT THAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT FOR THE REMEMBERING OF OUR LORD’S DEATH. THE APOSTLE JOHN PASSING THIS ON TO POLYCARP OF THE SECOND CENTURY, AND ALL THE ASIAN CHURCHES, WAY AFTER THE TEMPLE AND PRIESTHOOD HAD COME TO A STOP, WHEN THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED IN 70 A.D. BY THE ARMIES OF ROME UNDER TITUS. THE REPLY HENCE BY ROME FELL ABYSMALLY SHORT OF PROVING THEIR ARGUMENT, BUT IT SEEMS THE BRITISH CHURCH DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR WISDOM TO BLOW ROME’S ARGUMENT OUT OF THE WATER - AS I HAVE JUST DONE - Keith Hunt]
John, following the custom of the Law, used to begin Feast of Easter on the evening of the FOURTEENTH day of the first month, not caring whether it fell on the Sabbath or on any other day.
[YES JOHN KNEW THE PASSOVER AND FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD WAS TO BE OBSERVED, JUST AS PAUL SAID IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5 - WRITING TO JEWS AND GENTILES - Keith Hunt]
But Peter, when he preached in Rome, remembering that it was on the day after the Sabbath that our Lord rose from the dead and gave the world the hope of resurrection, realized that Easter should be kept as follows: like John, in accordance with the Law, he waited for moonrise on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month. And if the Lord's Day, then called the morrow of the Sabbath, fell on the following day, he began to observe Easter the same evening, as we all do today. But, if the Lord's Day did not fall on the day following the fourteenth day of the moon, but on the sixteenth, seventeenth, or any other day up to the twenty-first, he waited until that day, and on the Sabbath evening preceding it he began the observance of the Easter Festival.
[A WHOLE LOT OF BALONY….. JOHN NOR PETER EVER TAUGHT SUCH AN OBSERVANCE AS EASTER. THE WEEKLY SABBATH HAD NO BEARING ON THE PASSOVER OF THE 14 AND THE 7 DAYS OF THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. SUNDAY WAS NOT OBSERVED AS ANY HOLY DAY BY PETER, JOHN OR THE EARLY NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. THE NEXT STATEMENT BY WILFRID SHOWS THE UTMOST SILLIEST OF THEOLOGY - Keith Hunt]
This evangelical and apostolical tradition does not abrogate but fulfil the Law, which ordained that the Passover be kept between the eve of the fourteenth and twenty-first days of the moon of the month. And this is the custom of all the successors of blessed John in Asia since his death and is also that of the world-wide Church.
[THIS IS UTTER THEOLOGY SO FAR OUT IT MUST COME FROM PLANET PLUTO. THE PASSOVER IS ONE SINGLE DAY - THE 14TH OF THE MONTH. THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD IS FROM THE 15 TO THE 21 DAYS. ROME’S DAY OF EASTER SOMETIMES FALLS WITHIN THE 14 TO 21 DAYS, HENCE WILFRID’S REMARK, BUT CONFUSING THE ISSUE. COLMAN HAD OBVIOUSLY LOST THE ANSWER TO WILFRID ON THE TRUE FEASTS OF THE TWO SPRING FEASTS OF GOD (PASSOVER AND FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD).
ILFRID GOES ON TO SAY - Keith Hunt]
“This is the true and only Easter to be observed by the faithful. [AGAIN UTTER NONSENSE - Keith Hunt]. It was not newly decreed by the Council of Nicea, but reaffirmed by it, as Church history records.
[WHAT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA SAID MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS PROVING THRUTH FROM GOD’S WORD - Keith Hunt]
It is quite apparent, Colman, that you fallow neither the example of John, as you imagine, nor that of Peter, whose tradition you deliberately contradict. Your keeping of Easter agrees neither with the Law nor with the Gospel.
[CERTAINLY THE BRITISH CHURCH HAD SOME THINGS MIXED UP OVER CENTURIES OF TIME, BUT THEY HAD THE BASIC 14TH PASSOVER IN MIND AS TO THE BASIC TRUTH - Keith Hunt]
For John, who kept Easter in accordance with the decrees of Moses, did not keep to the first day after the Sabbath; but this is not your practice, for you keep Easter only on the first day after the Sabbath.
[COLMAN AND THE BRITISH CHURCH HAD AFTER MANY CENTURIES, LOST THE SPECIFIC TRUTH OF WHEN TO OBSERVE THE PASSOVER/LORD’S DEATH MEMORIAL - Keith Hunt]
Peter kept Easter between the FIFTEENTH and TWENTY-FIRST days of the moon, you do not; for you keep it between the FOURTEENTH and TWENTIETH days of the moon.
[PETER NEVER DID ANY SUCH THING, THIS IS ALL ROMAN CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA TO TEACH PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE AND INSPIRED TO CHANGE THE PASSOVER AND HEBREW CALENDAR, TO THE EASTER AND ROMAN CALENDAR, AS SHOWN BY POLYCARP AND POLYCRATES OF THE SECOND CENTURY, DEBATING THE BISHOP OF ROME OVER THIS ISSUE, NEITHER HAVING SUCCESS TO GET ROME TO CHANGE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH AS TAUGHT BY THE CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR, FROM PAUL AND JOHN. ROME’S IDEA THAT PETER TAUGHT DIFFERENT THAN PAUL AND JOHN WAS AND IS, ONLY A MAKE-BELIEVE THEOLOGY FROM ALICE IN WONDERLAND - THEIR OWN IMAGINATION. AND WE SEE THE BRITISH CHURCH HAD OVER CENTURIES LOST SPECIFIC TRUTH ABOUT THIS SPRING FEAST - Keith Hunt]
As a result, you often begin Easter on the evening of the thirteenth day, which is not mentioned in the Law. Nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospel, eat the old Passover or institute the Sacrament of the New Testament to be celebrated by the Church in memory of His Passion on that day, but on the fourteenth.
[NOW THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU COUNT DAYS….THE ROMAN WAY OR THE HEBREW/JEWISH WAY; FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE 14TH COULD ON THE ROMAN CALENDAR BE COUNTED AS THE 13TH DAY. SO MORE SMOKE THROWN UP IN CLEVER BUT DECEPTIVE WAYS BY WILFRID REPRESENTING ROME - Keith Hunt]
Furthermore, when you keep Easter, you totally exclude the twenty-first day, which the Law of Moses particularly ordered to be observed. Therefore, I repeat, you follow neither John nor Peter, the Law nor the Gospel, in your keeping of our greatest Festival.
[SO INDEED THROUGH THE CENTURIES THE CHURCH OF BRITAIN LOST SOME TRUTH; NOTE WILFRID IS ADMITTING JOHN AND PETER DID KEEP ALL THE DAYS OF THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, OR WILFRID WOULD HAVE SAID, PETER AND JOHN NEVER OBSERVED THE 21ST DAY FOR THEY TAUGHT NOT TO OBSERVE THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. ILFRID HAD COLMAN GOING IN CIRCLES, AND IT IS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT HAVE THE TECHNICAL THEOLOGY TO COUNTER ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS - Keith Hunt]
Colman in reply said:
Do you maintain that Anatolius, a holy man highly spoken of in Church history, taught contrary to the Law and the Gospel, when he wrote that Easter should be kept between the fourteenth and twentieth days of the moon? Are we to believe that our most revered Father Columba and his successors, men so dear to God, thought or acted contrary to Holy Scripture when they followed this custom? The holiness of many of them is confirmed by heavenly signs, and their virtues by miracles; and having no doubt that they are Saints, I shall never cease to emulate their lives, customs, and discipline.
[GOD DOES ALLOW MEN THAT HE USES TO NOT ALWAYS BE ON THE BULL’S EYE WITH SOME TRUTH; HE MAY ALLOW THEM TO FOLLOW THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS WHO WALKED BEFORE THEM. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE CASE WITH ANATOLIA AND COLUMBA, WHO WERE VERY WRONG IN THINKING THAT “EASTER” SHOULD BE OBSERVED BETWEEN THE 14TH AND 20TH DAYS OF THE MOON - Keith Hunt]
“It is well established that Anatolius was a most holy, learned, and praiseworthy man,” answered Wilfrid; “but how can you claim his authority when you do not follow his directions? For he followed the correct rule about Easter, and observed a cycle of nineteen years; but either you do not know of this general custom of the Christian Church, or else you ignore it. He calculated the fourteenth day of the moon at Easter according to the Egyptian method, counting it in the evening as the fifteenth day; similarly, he assigned the twentieth to Easter Sunday, regarding it after sunset as the twenty-first day. But it appears that you do not realize this distinction, since you sometimes keep Easter before full moon, that is, on the thirteenth day. And with regard to your Father Columba and his followers, whose holiness you claim to imitate and whose rules and customs you claim to have been supported by heavenly signs, I can only say that when many shall say to our Lord at the day of judgement: ‘Have we not prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils, and done many wonderful works?’ the Lord will reply, ‘I never knew you.’ Far be it from me to apply these words to your fathers; for it is more just to believe good rather than evil of those whom one does not know. So I do not deny that they were true servants of God and dear to Him, and that they loved Him in primitive simplicity but in devout sincerity. Nor do I think that their ways of keeping Easter were seriously harmful, so long as no one came to show them a more perfect way to follow, indeed, I feel certain that, if any Catholic had come to them, they would readily have accepted his guidance, as we know that they readily observed such of God's ordinances as they already knew. But you and your colleagues are most certainly guilty of sin if you reject the decrees of the Apostolic See, indeed of the universal Church, which are confirmed by Holy Writ. For, although your Fathers were holy men, do you imagine that they, a few men in a corner of a remote island, are to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world? And even our Columba - or, may I say, ours also if he was the servant of Christ - was a Saint potent in miracles, can he take precedence before the most blessed Prince of the Apostles, to whom our Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven?”
[OH THE CLEVERNESS OF WILFRID WITH SOME OF THE RIGHT ANSWER. YES HE SHOWS ANATOLIUS AND COLUMBA DID IT DIFFERENTLY THAN COLMAN AND THE BRITISH CHURCH WERE DOING IT. HE ACKNOWLEDGES THEM AS USED BY GOD, BUT WITH LESS LIGHT THAN THE CHURCH OF ROME; THEN HE CAREFULLY PRAISES THEM IN THE REGARD THAT IF SOMEONE HAD SHOWN THEM MORE LIGHT THEY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED; THE MORE LIGHT COMING FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. THEN AFTER PRAISING THOSE TWO MEN WHO WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED MORE LIGHT, HE THEN BLUNTLY TELLS COLMAN AND THE BRITISH CHURCH, THEY SIN, IF THEY REJECT THE DECREES OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, THE UNIVERSAL (CATHOLIC) CHURCH CONFIRMED BY HOLY WRIT, WHICH IS NEVER WAS ONLY IN THE PERVERTED MIND-SET OF CATHOLICS, AND THAT MIRACLES OF THEMSELVES DO NOT PROVE TRUTH, SUCH WILFRID HAD CORRECT. THEN WILFRID REALLY USES THE “NUMBERS” PLOY….. WE ARE THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE WORLD AS KNOWN AT THE TIME, AND A FEW MEN AS COLMAN MENTIONS SURELY CANNOT KNOW AND HAVE MORE TRUTH THAN THE CHURCH THAT JESUS SAID WAS FOUNDED UPON PETER AND THE ROMAN CHURCH CLAIMED THEY WERE THEN FOUNDED UPON PETER….. WHICH OF COURSE THEY NEVER WERE, FOR PETER WOULD NEVER HAVE TAUGHT THIS ROMAN THEOLOGY OF EASTER THAT POLYCARP (TAUGHT BY APOSTLE JOHN) AND POLYCRATES (TAUGHT BY POLYCARP) DEBATED WITH THE BISHOP OF ROME IN STATING ROME WAS INCORRECT. BUT THE CLEVER TACTIC OF WILFRID WAS BASED UPON A TWISTING AND UN-HISTORICAL FALLACY OF PETER BEING THE FIRST ROMAN BISHOP. BUT COLMAN WAS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER WITH THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER…… WHICH NOW LEFT COLMAN OPEN FOR THE KNOCK OUT PUNCH, FOR HIS LACK OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY - Keith Hunt]
When Wilfrid had ended, the king asked: “Is it true, Colman, that these words were spoken to that Peter by our Lord?”
He answered: “It is true, Your Majesty.”
Then the king said: “Can you show that a similar authority was given to your Columba?”
“No,” replied Colman.
“Do you both agree”, the king continued, “that these words were indisputably addressed to Peter in the first place, and that our Lord gave him the keys of the kingdom ofheaven?”
Both answered: “We do.”
At this, the king concluded: “Then, I tell you, Peter is guardian of the gates of heaven, and I shall not contradict him. I shall obey his commands in everything to the best of my knowledge and ability; otherwise, when I come to the gates of heaven, there may be no one to open them, because he who holds the keys has turned away.”
When the king said this, all present, both high and low, signified their agreement and, abandoning their imperfect customs, hastened to adopt those which they had learned to be better.
[AH COLMAN MISSED HIS CHANCE, TO STATE THAT THE CHURCH WAS INDEED TO START WITH PETER AS LEADER OR SPOKESMAN, AS SEEN FROM THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. CLEARLY THAT JERUSALEM CHURCH HAD PETER AS LEADING SPOKESMAN; BUT FURTHER READING SHOWS AND EXPLAINS THAT IT WOULD NOT CONTINUE THAT WAY. FURTHER READING SHOWS PETER WAS NEVER TO BE FOREVER THE LEADING SPOKESMAN FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD! THAT THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO TEACH PETER’S LEADING WAS TO BE HANDED DOWN, THAT PETER WOULD HAND IT TO THE NEXT LEADING MAN, AND HE THEN TO ANOTHER, AND SO ON DOWN THROUGH THE AGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, UNTIL THE TIME OF CHRIST’S RETURN. A LITTLE MORE READING BY COLMAN INTO THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL (BOOK OF GALATIANS SPECIFICALLY) WOULD CLEARLY SHOW PAUL NOT ONLY CORRECTED A MISTAKE BY PETER, BUT PAUL MADE IT CLEAR HE THOUGHT OF NO MAN ABOVE HIMSELF. PAUL WOULD HAVE LAUGHED AT THE IDEA PETER WAS ABOVE HIMSELF, AND THAT SOME “TOP DOG” MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF GOD WOULD EMANATE FROM PETER IN A LINE OF SUCCESSION FROM PETER HANDING IT ON TO THE NEXT “TOP DOG” MINISTER, AND SO FORTH TO THE END OF THIS AGE. THE MINISTRY OF PAUL AND HIS INSPIRED WRITINGS BLOWS THE “POPE” THEOLOGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO A BILLION PIECES…… SADLY COLMAN DID NOT KNOW THE BIBLE, ESPECIALLY THE NEW TESTAMENT, WELL ENOUGH TO TRASH WILFRID’S ARGUMENTS.
THE TRUTH FROM GOD’S WORD CONCERNING EASTER OR PASSOVER IS FULLY EXPOUNDED ON THIS WEBSITE IN MANY MANY STUDIES AND HISTORICAL FACTS THAT FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS SOME PEOPLE ALWAYS OBSERVED THE PASSOVER AND NEVER THE EASTER TRADITION, WHICH HISTORY SHOWS WAS A OF PAGAN ORIGIN, AS LIKE “CHRIST-MASS” WAS ALSO - Keith Hunt]
CHAPTER 26: After his defeat Colman returns home and Tuda succeeds to his bishopric [A.D. 664]; the condition of the Church under these teachers
In this way the controversy was terminated, the company dispersed, and Agilbert returned home. Colman, seeing his teachings rejected and his following discounted, took away with him all who wished to follow him, that is, all who still dissented from the Catholic Easter and tonsure - for there was no small argument about this as well - and returned to the land of the Scots in order to consult his compatriots on their future course of action. Cedd, on the other hand, having abandoned the Scots' customs and accepted the Catholic, returned to his own bishopric. This Synod took place in the year of our Lord 664, which was the twenty-second year of King Oswy's reign, and the thirtieth anniversary of the coming of the Scots bishops to England, Aidan having held his bishopric for seventeen years, Finan for ten, and Colman for three.
On Colman's return to his own land, the servant of God, Tuda, became bishop of the Northumbrians in his place. He had been trained and consecrated bishop by the southern Scots, and had worn the ecclesiastical tonsure according to the customs of the province, and observed the Catholic Easter customs. He was a good devout man, but ruled the diocese only for a short time. He had arrived from the land of the Scots during Colman's episcopate, and taught the truths of the Faith diligently in word and deed. Then Eata, abbot of the monastery of Mailros,1 a gentle man and greatly revered, was appointed Abbot of Lindisfarne to rule the brethren who elected to remain there when the Scots withdrew. It is said that before Colman left, he asked and obtained this favour from King Oswy, because Eata had been one of the twelve English boys whom Aidan received to be taught the Christian Faith when he first became bishop; for the king had high
regard for Bishop Colman's inherent good sense. This is the same Eata who not long afterwards was raised to the bishopric of the church of Lindisfarne. On his return home, Colman took with him a portion of the bones of the most reverend Father Aidan; but he left some of them in the church over which he had ruled, directing that they be enshrined in the sacristy.
So frugal and austere were Colman and his predecessors that when they left the seat of their authority there were very few buildings except the church; indeed, no more than met the bare requirements of a seemly way of life. They had no property except cattle, and whenever they received any money from rich folk, they immediately gave it to the poor; for they had no need to amass money or provide lodging for important people, since such visited the church only in order to pray or hear the word of God. Whenever opportunity offered, the king himself used to come with only five or six attendants; and when he had completed his prayer in the church, he used to leave. But if they happened to remain for a meal, they were content with the plain daily food of the brothers and asked nothing more. For in those days the sole concern of these teachers was to serve God, not the world; to satisfy the soul, not the belly. Accordingly the religious habit at that time was held in high esteem. Wherever any priest or monk paid a visit, he was joyfully welcomed by all as the servant of God. And if people met him on the road, they ran to him and bowed, eager to be signed by his hand or receive a blessing from his lips. Whenever he spoke a word of encouragement, he was given an attentive hearing. On Sundays the people flocked to the churches and monasteries, not to obtain food, but to hear the word of God. When a priest visited a village, the people were quick to gather together to receive the word of life; for priests and clerics always came to a village solely to preach, baptize, visit the sick, and, in short, to care for the souls of its people. They were so free from the sin of avarice that none of them would accept lands or gifts for the building of monasteries unless expressly directed to do so by the secular authorities. This continued to be the general practice for some years among the churches of the Northumbrians. But enough has been said on such matters.
[A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN BEING A MINISTER THEN, THAN MANY TODAY WHO HOLD THE TITLE OF “MINISTER OF THE LORD” - HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED - NOT FOR THE BETTER - Keith Hunt]
CHAPTER 27: Egbert, an Englishman of holy life, becomes a monk in Ireland
In the same year of our Lord 664 an eclipse of the sun occurred about ten o'clock in the morning on the third of May; and a sudden plague, which first decimated the southern parts of Britain and later spread into the province of the Northumbrians, raged for a long time and brought widespread death to many people. Bishop Tuda fell a victim to this plague, and was buried with honour in the monastery of Paegnalaech. The plague was equally destructive in Ireland. At this period there were many English nobles and lesser folk in Ireland who had left their own land during the episcopates of Bishops Finan and Colman, either to pursue religious studies or to lead a life of stricter discipline. Some of these soon devoted themselves to the monastic life, while others preferred to travel, studying under various teachers in turn. The Scots welcomed them all kindly, and, without asking for any payment, provided them with daily food, books, and instruction.
Among these English nobles were Ethelhun and Egbert, two young men of outstanding ability. The former was brother of Ethelwin, a man no less dear to God, who at a later date also travelled to study in Ireland and, after a full course of instruction, returned home and was made Bishop of Lindsey, where he enjoyed a long and illustrious episcopate. These two young men, who were studying in the monastery which the Scots call Rathmelsigi, having lost all their companions either through the plague or through their dispersal to other places, were themselves stricken by the same disease and fell dangerously ill. And I am told by a most dependable priest of venerable age, who says that he learnt the story at first hand, that Egbert, believing himself about to die, went out one morning from the room where the sick were lying and, sitting down in a place by himself, began seriously to examine his past life. Tears fell from his eyes as he sorrowfully recalled his sins, and he begged God from the bottom of his heart not to let him die until he could atone for the offences of his boyhood and youth, and exert himself to better purpose in good deeds. He also made a vow that he would remain an exile and never return to his native island of Britain; and that, unless prevented by sickness, in addition to the canonical hours of prayer, he would recite the entire Psalter daily to the praise of God and would fast once a week for a day and a night. When he had ended his tears, vows and prayers, he returned to the house where he found his companion asleep; and lying down on his pallet, he composed himself to rest. When he had lain there a short while, his companion awoke, and looking at him, said: "O brother Egbert, what have you done? I was hoping that we should enter eternal life together; but now you may be sure that what you have prayed for will be granted." For he had learned in a vision what his friend had prayed for, and that his prayer was heard. The rest is soon told. Ethelhun died the following night; but Egbert threw off the disease, recovered, and lived for many years. He became a worthy ornament of the priestly order, and, as he had prayed, lived a life of great merit, entering the kingdom of heaven at the age of ninety in the year of our Lord 729. Egbert led a life of great humility, gentleness, purity, simplicity, and uprightness. He brought great blessings both to his own nation, and to the Picts and Scots among whom he exiled himself, setting them an example of holy life. He was indefatigable in teaching, firm in administering reproof, and generous in distributing whatever he received from the rich. In addition to his earlier vows, he ate only one meal a day during Lent, allowing himself a scanty ration of bread and skim milk; for he used to keep the previous day's fresh milk in a flask, and having skimmed off the cream next day, he drank what was left with a little bread. He practised a similar abstinence for forty days before Christmas, and as many after the Feast of Pentecost.
[CERTAINLY NO DOUBT HE WAS SINCERE, SOME THEOLOGY HE HAD VERY WRONG FOR SURE, BUT AS AN EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE LIFE OF SERVICE, PROBABLY TOO SIMPLE, FOR PUNISHING HIS BODY AT TIMES WITH NOT MUCH FOOD, DOES NOT PROVE YOU ARE DOING WHAT GOD DESIRES WITH YOUR BODY, AFTER ALL IT IS WRITTEN WE ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD. DESPITE NOT ALWAYS EATING A BALANCED MEAL HE LIVED TO BE 90 - Keith Hunt]
CHAPTER 28: On Tudas death, Wilfrid is consecrated bishop in Gaul and Chad among the West Saxons, to be bishops in the Province of the Northumbrians [A.D. 665]
Meanwhile King Alchfrid sent Wilfrid, then a priest, to the King of the Gauls to be consecrated bishop for himself and his people. He sent him for consecration to Agilbert, who, as I have said, had been made Bishop of Paris after his return from Britain. Summoning several other bishops to the royal country-seat at Compiegne, he consecrated Wilfrid with great splendour. But since Wilfrid remained overseas for a considerable time on account of his consecration, King Oswy meanwhile, following his son's example, sent to Canterbury to be consecrated Bishop of York, a holy man, modest in his ways, learned in the Scriptures, and careful to practise all that he found in them. This was a priest named Chad, a brother of the above-mentioned most reverend Bishop Cedd, and at that time Abbot of Lastingham. With Chad the king sent a priest named Eadhaed, who later, during the reign of Egfrid, became Bishop of Ripon. On arriving in Kent, they found that Archbishop Deusdedit had died and that no successor had yet been appointed. They therefore went on to the province of the West Saxons, consecrated Chad as bishop with the assistance of two bishops of the British, who, as I have often observed, keep Easter contrary to canonical practice between the fourteenth and twentieth days of the moon. For at that time Wini was the only bishop in all Britain who had been canonically consecrated.
When he became bishop, Chad immediately devoted himself to maintaining the truth and purity of the Church, and set himself to practise humility and continence and to study. After the example of the Apostles, he travelled on foot and not on horseback when he went to preach the Gospel, whether in towns or country, in cottages, villages, or strongholds; for he was one of Aidan's disciples and always sought to instruct his people by the same methods as Aidan and his own brother Cedd. And Wilfred too, when he returned to Britain as a bishop, introduced into the English churches many Catholic customs, with the result that the Catholic Rite daily gained support and all the Scots then living among the English either conformed to it or returned to their own land.
[WE SEE THE SPREAD OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM AS IT MARCHED ALONG TO CONQUER BRITAIN. BY THE 11TH CENTURY THERE WAS LITTLE OF THE BRITISH CHURCH LEFT, MOST HAD ADOPTED ROMAN THEOLOGY - Keith Hunt]
CHAPTER 29: The priest Wighard is sent from Britain to Rome to he made archbishop: letters from the apostolic Pope tell of his death there [A.D. 655]
At this time, the most noble English kings Oswy of the Northumbrians and Egbert of the Kentish folk conferred together on the state of the Church of the English; for Oswy, although educated by the Scots, was fully aware that the Roman Church was the Catholic and Apostolic Church. With the choice and approval of the holy Church of the English, the two kings accepted the priest Wighard, one of Archbishop Deusdedit's clergy, a good man well fitted to be a bishop, and sent him to Rome to be consecrated bishop, so that, when he had received the rank of Archbishop, he could consecrate Catholic bishops for the churches of the English throughout Britain. Wighard arrived in Rome, but died before he could be consecrated; and the following letter was sent to Oswy in Britain:
"To our son, the most excellent Lord Oswy, King of the Saxons, from Bishop Vitalian, servant of the servants of God.
We have read Your Excellency's welcome letter, in which we recognize your very sincere devotion and fervent desire for eternal life. And we know how you have been converted to the true and apostolic Faith by the guiding hand of God, and trust that, as you now reign over your own nation, so you will one day reign with Christ. Your nation is fortunate to have a king so wise and devoted to the worship of God, who not only adores God himself, but labours day and night to lead all his people to the Catholic Apostolic Faith, and to save his own soul. Who can help being glad to hear such encouraging news? And who will not be delighted at such works of devotion? For your nation has come to believe in Christ our mighty God in fulfilment of the words of God's prophets, as Isaiah says: 'In that day there shall he a root of Jesse, which shall stand as an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek.' And again: 'Listen, O isles, unto Me; and hearken, ye people, from far.' And a little later he says: 'It is a light thing that thou shouldest he My servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation unto the end of the earth.' And again: 'Kings shall see, princes also shall arise and worship.' And later: 'I have given thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth and possess the desolate heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves.' And again: 'I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.'
Here you may see, most excellent son, how clearly it is prophesied, not only of you but of all nations, that they shall believe in Christ the Maker of all things. It must therefore be the task of Your Majesty, as a living member of Christ, always to observe the holy precepts of the Prince of the Apostles, both in keeping Easter, and in everything transmitted to us by the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, who, as the two heavenly bodies light the world, give daily light by their teaching to the hearts of all believers."
[NOTICE THE MENTION OF THE SUPPOSED "TRUE EASTER" - Keith Hunt]
And after some observations on the keeping of one true Easter throughout the world, the Pope continues:
"In view of the lengthy journey involved, we have not yet been able to discover a man wholly suitable to be your bishop, as you request in your letters. But as soon as such a man can be found, we will give him instructions and send him to your country, so that under God's guidance, through his own witness and the teachings of God, he may uproot the tares sown by the Enemy throughout your island. We gratefully acknowledge the gifts sent by Your Highness to the blessed Prince of the Apostles in tribute to his immortal memory, and pray for your safety together with the Christian clergy. But the bearer of your gifts has departed this life, and is buried in the Church of the Apostles. We are deeply distressed that he should have died here. We have directed, however, that blessings of the Saints - that is, relics of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs Laurence, John, and Paul, Gregory and Pancras - be given to the bearers of this letter for delivery to Your Excellency. By the same bearers we send to our spiritual daughter, your queen, a cross made from the fetters of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul with a golden key. Learning of her pious zeal, the entire apostolic see rejoices with us as greatly as her holy deeds shine and blossom in the sight of God. We trust that Your Highness will soon fulfil our hope, and dedicate your whole island to Christ our God. For assuredly you have as your protector the Redeemer of the human race, our Lord Jesus Christ, who will support all your efforts to draw together a new people in Christ, and establish there the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. For Scripture says: 'Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you'; and you assuredly seek, and will obtain what we too desire, that is, the conversion of all your islands. We greet Your Excellency with fatherly affection, constantly praying that God of His mercy will assist you and yours in all good works, so that you may reign with Christ in the world to come. May Heaven's grace preserve Your Excellency in health."
[QUITE THE LETTER SHOWING ROME WAS VERY MUCH OUT TO SPIRITUALLY CONQUER BRITAIN, AND IT WAS WELL ON ITS WAY TO DO SO - Keith Hunt]
CHAPTER 30: During a plague the East Saxons lapse into idolatry, but are quickly recalled from their errors by Bishop Jaruman [A.D. 665]
At the same time, the kings Sighere and Sebbi succeeded Swidhelm, of whom I have spoken, as rulers of the East Saxons under Wulfhere, King of the Mercians. While the plague was causing a heavy death-roll in the province, Sighere and his people abandoned the mysteries of the Christian Faith and relapsed into paganism. For the king himself, together with many of the nobles and common folk, loved this life and sought no other, or even disbelieved in its existence. Hoping for protection against the plague by this means, they therefore began to rebuild the ruined temples and restore the worship of idols. But Sebbi his fellow-king and colleague held with all his people loyally to the Faith they had accepted, and, as will appear later, remained faithful and ended his days happily.
As soon as King Wulfhere learned that part of the province had apostatized from the Faith, he sent Bishop Jaruman, Trumhere's successor, to correct their error and recall the province to the true Faith. I am told by a priest who accompanied him on his journey and shared his preaching that Jaruman proceeded with great energy, for he was a good devout man, who travelled far and wide and succeeded in bringing back both king and people to the path of righteousness. As a result, they abandoned or destroyed the temples and altars they had erected, and opened the churches, glad to confess the name of Christ whom they had denied, and more ready to die with him believing in the Resurrection than to continue living among their idols in the degradation of apostasy. Their task accomplished, these priests and teachers then returned home full of joy.
[AS I'VE STATED ROME WAS NOW WELL ON ITS WAY TO SPIRITUALLY RULE IN BRITAIN; ONLY POCKETS OF PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND AND WALES WOULD HOLD OUT UNTIL ABOUT THE 11TH CENTURY A.D. Keith Hunt]
TO BE CONTINUED