Patrick Not A Catholic
To those who have heard of Patrick only as a Catholic saint, it may be a surprise to learn that he was not a Roman Catholic at all, but that he was a member of the original Celtic church. There is no more historic evidence for Patrick’s being a Roman Catholic saint, than for Peter’s being the first pope. Catholics claim that Pope Celestine commissioned Patrick as a Roman Catholic missionary to Ireland; but William Cathcart, D. D., says:FAFA 135.5
“There is strong evidence that Patrick had no Roman commission in Ireland.”FAFA 135.6
“As Patrick’s churches in Ireland, like their brethren in Britain, repudiated the supremacy of the popes, all knowledge of the conversion of Ireland through his ministry must be suppressed [by Rome, at all cost.]” — Id., p. 85.FAFA 135.7
The popes who lived contemporary with Patrick never mentioned him. “There is not a written word from one of them rejoicing over Patrick’s additions to their church, showing clearly that he was not a Roman missionary.... So completely buried was Patrick and his work by popes and other Roman Catholics, that in their epistles and larger publications, his name does not once occur in one of them until A. D. 634.” — Id., p. 83.FAFA 136.1
“Prosper does not notice Patrick.... He says nothing of the greatest success ever given to a missionary of Christ, apparently because he was not a Romanist.” — Id., p. 84.FAFA 136.2
“Bede never speaks of St. Patrick in his celebrated ‘Ecclesiastical History.’” — Id., p. 85.FAFA 136.3
But, writing of the year 431, Bede says of a Catholic missionary: “Palladius was sent by Celestinus, the Roman pontiff, to the Scots [Irish] that believed in Christ.” — “Ecclesiastical History,” p. 22. London: 1894.FAFA 136.4
But this papal emissary was not received any more favorably by the church in Ireland, than was Augustine later received by the Celtic church of Scotland, for “he left because he did not receive respect in Ireland.” — “The Ancient British and Irish Churches,” William Cathcart, D. D., p. 72.FAFA 136.5
No Roman Catholic church would have dared to ignore a bishop sent them by the pope. This proves that the churches in the British Isles did not recognize the pope.FAFA 136.6
Dr. Todd says:FAFA 136.7
“The ‘Confession’ of St. Patrick contains not a word of a mission from Pope Celestine. One object of the writer was to defend himself from the charge of presumption in having undertaken such a work as the conversion of the Irish, rude and unlearned as he was. Had he received a regular commission from the see of Rome, that fact alone would be an unanswerable reply. But he makes no mention of Pope Celestine, and rests his defense altogether on the divine call which he believed himself to have received for his work.” — Id., pp. 81, 82.
“Muirchu wrote more than two hundred years after Patrick’s death. His declaration is positive that he did not go to Rome.” — Id., p. 88.FAFA 137.1
There are three reasons why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic missionary: 1. Early Catholic historians and popes avoided mentioning Patrick or his work; until later legendary histories represented him as a Catholic Saint. 2. When papal missionaries arrived in Britain, 596 A. D., the leaders of the original Celtic church refused to accept their doctrines, or to acknowledge the papal authority, and would not dine with them. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 8-11) They “acted towards the Roman party exactly ‘as if they had been pagans.’” — “Ecclesiastical Records,” by Richard Hart, pp. 8, 14. 3. The doctrines of the Celtic church of Patrick’s day differed so widely from those of the Roman church, that the latter could not have accepted it as “Catholic.” Patrick must have been a Sabbath-keeper, because the churches he established in Ireland, as well as the mother church in Scotland and England, followed the apostolic practice of keeping the seventh day Sabbath, and of working on Sunday, as we soon shall see. But this was considered deadly heresy by the Papacy.FAFA 137.2