Talk:Celtic Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Broader concept of "church" necessary to understand "Celtic Church"

The academics and others who talk about how there was never a Celtic Church in the sense and shape of the Church of Rome, Church of Constantinople, and so on, are ultimately arguing that lemon juice is not orange juice. They're forgetting the nature of the Celtic peoples in this period and, to a noticeable degree, still today.

At the height of their cultural influence, the Celts controlled Europe from Spain and the British Isles eastward up the Rhine, across the top of the Appenine Peninsula, and down the Danube into Romania; and, thence, into central Anatolia, in the region that bore their name when St. Paul wrote an epistle to their Asian descendants - the Galatians.

But while we historians sometimes use the term "Celtic Empire", we only mean 'empire' in an ethno-cultural sense. There was no emperor; no central government of any kind, even. That simply wasn't the Celtic way. Then, as later evidenced in the Scottish Highlanders who participated in the Jacobite rebellions, the Celts were usually ready to fight to defend, but never so ready to be led. In that respect, they were a highly democratic people - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they were highly libertarian. As individuals, they did not take well to other people telling them what to do - except, according to Julius Caesar, they "obey their Druids in all things".

So, of course, there was no centralised, parish-centred church model in Celtic lands. It's not the sort of thing that Celtic culture would have supported at that time. It would have been "too organised".

Rather, the Celtic "Church", like the Celtic "Empire", must be understood as in distinctly Celtic terms as an abstraction to indigenous Celtic culture of the continental model. The concrete element of the Celtic Church is the Celtic monastery, which was markedly different from the European style. It is in the monasteries and their daily activities that one finds the backbone of the monastically-centred Celtic Church, not in parish churches that were all but non-existent.

By the way, the Synod of Whitby occurred in "Engla Land", and only applied to "Engla Land". Major questions, such as the date of Easter, were not settled in Wales, Scotland or Ireland until much later. Irish Christians, for example, continued to practice the original method for the calendaring dating of Easter until AD 847 or thereabouts, when they accepted the "modern" method.

Also, this article says nothing about the scholarship into the traditions of continental Celtic Christianity. There is, for example, research into the tradition that disciples of St. Phillip travelled to Paris toward the beginning of the second century (some modern versions of the tradition give AD 108 as a date), and disciples of their disciples carried Christian teaching into Britain and Ireland long before the fall of Rome, or even the organisation of a formal, supervisory church based in that city.

A good encyclopaedia entry does not necessarily accept what are ultimately oral traditions as valid (or as invalid), but these traditions on origin should at least be mentioned.

98.210.168.158 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinions or Based on Facts/History ?? If this is what you FEEL why not provide source/references ?? Otherwise do a bit of reading,you might be a bit surprised with what you find. 86.133.251.100 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Naoise

Controversy within the academia regarding the existence of the Celtic Church

It should be pointed out that there is controversy within the academia regarding the existence of the Celtic Church. Since the 1970's a number of prominent historians have questioned the validity of the concept, arguing that the notion of the Celtic Church is largely a modern construct. The most notable proponents of this view have been the late Professor Kathleen Hughes of Cambridge University and Professor Wendy Davies of London University.

For example, Professor Wendy Davies confidently asserts that there was no such thing as a Celtic Church and the concept can be extremely misleading when attempting to understand the development of religious thought throughout the British Isles in the early medieval period. Basically she argues that there was considerable divergence in religious practices between different regions of Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and that it makes no more sense to speak of a Celtic Church than it does to speak of a Spanish Church or a Germanic Church during this period. She points out that the notion of the Celtic Church is not attested from any contemporary medieval source and that it was popularised during from the middle of the 19th century onwards. She conjectures that the rise of this concept had more to do with the ideological needs of Victorian society than evidence drawn from authentic medieval sourcces. Furthermore, she points out that a belief in the existence of a cohesive 'Celtic Christianity' can obscure genuine religious differences between different regions and different cultural groupings within the British Isles.

Important references include:

• Kathleen Hughes, 'The Celtic Church: Is This a Valid Concept?', O'Donnell lectures in Celtic Studies, University of Oxford 1975

• Kathleen Hughes, Church and Society in Ireland. London: Variorum, 1987.

• Wendy Davies, "The Myth of the Celtic Church." In The Early Church in Wales and the West, Oxbow Monograph, no. 16, edited by Nancy Edwards and Alan Lane, 12-21. Oxford: Oxbow, 1992.

• Wendy Davies, Wales in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982.

There is a nice summary of the debate in:

• Donald Meek, Surveying the Saints: Reflections on Recent Writings on 'Celtic Christianity Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Vol. 15, No 1, Spring 1997.

The views of these historians are not universally accepted and have not made a significant impact on the popular imagination, but have been very influential within academia. Very few medieval historians will confidently assert the existence of a cohesive Celtic Church nowadays without clarification.

A few additional references that should be considered when discussing traditional conceoptions of Celtic Christianity in the Early Medieval Period include:

• T. M. Charles-Edwards, `The pastoral role of the church in the early Irish laws' in Pastoral Care before the Parish, ed. J. Blair and R. Sharpe, 1992, pp. 63-80

• C. Etchingham, `Bishops in the early Irish church', Studia Hibernica 28 (1994), 35-62

• C. Etchingham, Church Organization in Ireland 650 to 1000, 1999

• C. Harrington, Women in a Celtic Church. Ireland 450-1150, 2002

• H. Pryce, `Pastoral care in early medieval Wales' in Pastoral Care before the Parish, ed. J. Blair and R. Sharpe, 1992, pp. 41-62

• J.M.H. Smith, `Celtic asceticism and Carolingian authority in early medieval Brittany', Studies in Church History 22 (1985)

• C. Thomas, Early Christian Archaeology of North Britain, 1971

• C. Thomas, Christianity in Roman Britain to AD500, 1981

I'm sure that there are more...I might post some additional ideas as I think of them.

(Drat. Now I'll need to set up a proper user account here).
(Above text added by user 59.167.13.12)

---

The criticsm that this article is skewed is quite correct. There was at least 350 years of conflict between Roman Christianity and Celtic Christianity that was finally resolved at the The Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D. To claim that Celtic Christians thought themselves as orthodox and in harmony with the teachings of Rome is a fairly large exageration. Though the Celtic form of Christianity was outlawed at the Google Synod of Whitby and Synod of Whitby. The ruling itself was not fully accepted, and Celtic Christians sustained indepentantly minded ideas until at least 900 A.D. (i.e. they accepted the Synod of Whitby's conclustions begrudgedly).

Furthermore, there is some evidence that Roman Christianity may have actually been influenced, developed, and possibly initiated by Celtic Christians. Like for example:

In 2 Timothy 4:1 Paul gives greetings to the Celts Pudens, and Linus (Celtic name Llyn). Llyn (Linus) was most likely the first Bishop of Rome as Peter hadn't yet come to Rome. Both Pudens and Linus were children of Caractacus also known as Caradoc. When Caradoc came to Rome, his household became known as Palatium Britannicum (Palace of the Britons), and Paul was certainly aware that Caradoc and his family were all Christians.

Also, the empiror Constantines mother was most likely British. Though historians tend to criticize Geoffrey of Monmouth's account. Constantine I (emperor) (subsection: Geoffrey of Monmouth and a Constantine made British) there is other evidence that this may be true.

Finally, in making the Roman Empire "Christian", Constantine clearly held a number of countils, and turned to the experts. In the Council of Arles in 318 A.D. which dealt with some administrative and theology issues, we clearly see Celtic Christians being consulted to give guidance.

I support the claim that this article is skewed and recommend it be given a re-write which reflects a more even treatment of non-Roman Christians.

WikiRat

---

I found the article highly dismissive, failing to reckon the fight for independence that preceded Celtic conformance with Rome.

What fight for independence? When Coleman lost the debate at Whitby he said that his future opposition would be in prayer, and asked others who dissented to join him in his island monastry and do likewise --ClemMcGann 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I quite agree. This article would not need corrections, it would need to be rewritten altogether. As it is, it is very one-sided and plays down the differences that existed.

Having contributed some of the material to this article in the past, I am puzzled over the allegations of "dismissive" & "one-sided". The Christians in Britain & Ireland thought of themselves as not only being orthodox but in harmony with the teachings of Rome. And it was they who learned that some of their traditions were not in harmony with the wider church, & made the efforts of bringing themselves into harmony: we learn from a letter from Cummian to Segene, abbot of Iona that a council in southern Ireland c.630 had adopted the Roman dating for Easter; then c.697 in northern Ireland; in 715 in Iona, & at last in 768 in Wales. There never was a formal schism between the believers in Celtic Christianity & Rome on the scale of, say, the Monophysites & Rome in the east. (Nor even between the northern Italian churches & Rome over the Three Chapter Controversy.) And the very gradualness of this adoption of Easter points to the fact that there was no Celtic Church but Celtic Churches.

Of course, English partisans like Bede found it their advantage to emphasize the differences between the old Christians of western & the new Christians of eastern Britain, & thus indirectly argue that God had forsaken the westerners for their errors in faith.

On the other hand, as time progressed & both the Welsh & Irish came under pressure of an united English kingdom, the independence of their bishops -- who identified themselves as Catholic through-&-through -- became more important & thereby a political issue. And as far as I know, only then was a clear separation expressed between Ireland (who came to embace Catholicism), Wales (who embraced various forms on Non-Conformity) & England (who officially embraced Anglicism).

In any case, I agree that this article does need more work & material. -- llywrch 20:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Llywrch, when he says The Christians in Britain & Ireland thought of themselves as not only being orthodox but in harmony with the teachings of Rome. We should not judge those times with our post-reformation thinking. The Celts were different, but they were not deliberately different, and they did seek harmony. There was no competition. Nor was the harmonisation one-sided. For example 1-2-1 confession was a Celtic practice adopted by Rome. --ClemMcGann 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any issue in those times over the sale of indulgences That was many centuries later --ClemMcGann 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No words about Pelagius

Pelagius, born in Britain, was one of the most original monk. Saint Augustin himself fought against his doctrine of salvation : the human will predominates againts the divine Mercy.

Pélagianisme : Doctrine de Pélage (né en Grande-Bretagne vers 360, mort en Palestine vers 422) qui minimisait le rôle de la grâce divine par rapport à celui de la volonté humaine, et qui trouva en saint Augustin un adversaire redoutable.

(english translation)

Pelagianism: Doctrines of Pelagius (born in Great Britain towards 360, died in Palestine towards 422) which minimized the role of the divine grace compared to that of the human will, and which was found by Saint Augustine a frightening adversary.

More on the site : Pelagius and pelagianism
I don't know enough to write about it, but it seems to have been important. Gwalarn 17:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although the Vita of St. Germanus of Auxerre mentions he went to Britain to combat Pelagianism, by the time written records emerge of the Celtic Church, the beliefs of that sect had been long forgotten; neither Germanus nor St. Patrick express any knowledge of Pelagianism in their writings, & had he known about it, Gildas for one would have eagerly condemned his fellow men for this belief.

Again on the other hand, some scholars (like J.N.L. Myres & John Morris) claim that Pelagius did have a direct effect on the British church; but I believe Charles Thomas, in his Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981 ISBN 0520043928) has thoroughly shown that these beliefs are incorrect, & based on projecting a modern POV upon an earlier age. -- llywrch 20:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Llywrch --ClemMcGann 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Celts did seem to have a different prespective than Augustine. It was only when he was on the continent that Pelagius went to an extreem and then over the line into heresy. At times I am of the opinion that the Augustine school goaded him into heresy. Pelagius, then, did not represent the thinking of the Celts. However he does deserve a mention. --ClemMcGann 14:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have researched Pelagius and have found that his own writings counter the very claims that modern history tries to portray of him. In the opening lines of his article “ON THE CHRISTIAN LIFE" Pelagius writes:

"THE AUTHOR’S HUMBLE OPINION OF HIMSELF. It is purely the occasion of your love (which I have grasped in heart and mind by God’s power) and not faith in my own righteousness, nor the experience of wisdom, nor the glory of knowledge that has compelled me, a sinner first and last, more foolish than others and less experienced than all, to dare to write to you at length in order to counsel you to continue along the path of holiness and justice."

This by no means seems to be the writings of a self righteous man.

About Culdee

An anonymous editor rewrote parts of this article to emphasize a POV that equated Celtic Christianity with "Culdee", but did not bother to explain what was meant by this word. In order to keep this article NPOV, I reverted those changes, while attempting to preserve later edits.

However, there is an article on the Culdees in Wikipedia, which is relevant to the section of this article that discusses modern Celtic Christianity. I'm adding a link to this article because form the notes on this Talk page it does appear there is a non-idosyncratic POV that links the two. -- llywrch 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and secularism

From what I've heard, one of the main differences between the Church in Ireland (and presumably the other Celtic nations) and the Continental Churchs was the supremacy of secular law over church law. As an example, marriage was a secular matter so divorce in Gaelic Ireland was legal and commonly practiced. This separation between Christianity and the material world may account for the popularity of contemplative, monastic life in the Celtic world.

This is not my area of expertise so I won't add anything to the acticle. If anyone can add this aspect to the article or contradict it, please do so (I'm a scientist so negatives are as good as positives!) Afn 15:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct to say that Church law did not correspond to ‘Brehon Law’. Although the Church did, in some instances, encouraged (to put it mildly) changes in Brehon Law. A well recorded example would be the exclusion of women and monks from the obligation to fight – to join the army of the local chief when called upon. A poorly documented example is the abolition of slavery. In pre-Christian times there were slaves. Later there weren’t. When Viking towns recognised the overlordship of Irish kings, the abolition of slavery was a condition. Brehon Law recognised divorce, Church law didn’t. In that sense, Church law was different to secular law, rather than being over or under it. However, Brehon law had marriage “for one year certain”. A couple got married for a year. If there was a child then they had to remain together. If not, they could part. It seems that the church accepted this arrangement! --ClemMcGann 16:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Welsh maintained seperate secular laws from church laws. This was the chief bone of contention well into the 13th century, with the Welsh refusing to give up their own laws. Welsh law remained in force until the 16th century in all cases except murder, when it was outlawed.Drachenfyre 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's the neutrality dispute?

I'm confused, is the NPOV tag just left over from ages ago, or what? Anyway, my tuppenceworth is that ClemMcGann's right, the discussion about Pelagius's real or imagined influence on Celtic Christianity deserves a mention; so does Patrick, who at the minute is not mentioned at all! (Was this deliberate – I mean, was it the opinion of the contributors that Patrick lived prior to the Celtic churches' distinctive features crystallizing or something?) QuartierLatin 1968 17:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ---

Major Revision

I've removed the NPOV tag, as I've updated this article, and attempted to show the pro and anti arguments about the existance of the Celtic (or Culdee) church. I've also made effort to track back all of the ancient references that support the birth of the oral tradition which bulsters the pro-celtic church argument that there is sufficient evidence of an independant church to merit separate recognition. Although by no means is this perfect, I feel it is at least more objective than it was, delineating legend and tradition from what is commonly accepted. I've also bulstered the anti-side by providing comments about what ancient sources are thought to be questionable. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, but if you don't agree that this is at least a fairer representation of the article, let me know.

-- WikiRat 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thorough rewrite needed

This article is heavily slanted towards fringe nationalist claims, putting them on the same level as mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia is not the place to propogate historical revisionism. Nor are nationalist or overtly religious POVs appropriate. I'm going to re-instate the neutrality warning. If there is anyone well-versed in Celtic history, I would recommend some editing.--Rob117 18:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I’m sorry you personal don’t believe what the traditional Church historians believed and wrote. Some effort has been made cite the origin of the claims that the apostles brought Christianity to Britain. All of the citations point to church fathers. Furthermore, effort has been made to distinguish between what was written and believed and what was considered legendary. This article conveys what Church historians thought for almost two thousand years. I agree that there are many sceptical modern historians, but they are hardly indicative of full range of people who have written on the subject. If the argument past scholarships is made worthless by modern scholarship, the same logic modern scholarship will become worthless, and his therefore worthless also.

However if you wish to see this content more balanced (according to your understanding) please identify specifically which points are in dispute, or unbalanced. Once you identify those particular points that you are talking about, either show that the early sources did not write or substantiate the existing claims presented by the article, or provide counter evidence that this article is not aware of (perhaps scholarship you are aware of) that comments on, or amplifies earlier scholarship. Regardless, your personal sceptical belief is not shared by credible church historians before this century and therefore I suggest that it may be your view that is skewed. You write:

“If there is anyone well-versed in Celtic history, I would recommend some editing.” Rob117 18:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't say I am "well versed" but I do agree the article tends to promote some current ideas of some scholars who dismiss the very idea of a Celtic Church and Christianity at the expense of some older ideas. That is how people gain "names" in any field: tell everyone that they have it all wrong and promote some revision to history. With this in mind, I have revised a particularly slanted section, including renaming it. Fremte (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are not Tertullian, Maurus, the Bodleian collection, Baronius, Hardynge, Dio Cassius and so on well-versed in Celtic history? How are we to represent the writings of dead experts? Do we forbid their contribution because they are unable to make it in person? Would you have us rewrite this article and cite only the modern authors that you favour? Come on! We cannot ignore the early sources because they may suggest something unpopular or out of vogue. We cannot ignore the comments of the sources cited, and I would suggest that though they are dead, their comments should be included here and influence Wikipedia for they were at one time, all recognized as having credibility and they are hardly “fringe nationalists”. Though I do admit it is a nice tactic to apply a label to those who make unpopular arguments, for that tactic has always effectively removed focus from the argument itself onto the person making the argument.

Let us therefore look at the claims being made here instead of branding me a fringe nationalist, for all I have done is cite earlier experts to support a belief the Catholic Church held for ages. (By the way, I was probably the person whose edits you seem to be reacting to, and I am hardly a ‘fringe nationalist’. I’m Canadian and none of this has anything to do with when the Gospel came to Canada). Anyone with a brain can read what the early church historians wrote, formulate an opinion as to what they wrote and share it here. I am at least qualified to do that. (This is also why I have cited all sources and provided on-line links where possible to afford people the opporutnity to check the sources themselves).

I invite you to provide counter arguments with proof and I will restore the tag, otherwise I appreciate your view that this article is not neutral and incorrect but the tag remains removed. WikiRat 18:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving past dogma

Ok, let’s counter this dogma rationally: To Dominick, and Rob117 who keep putting in disputed and POV tags, you have expressed your opinion. We know that you think this article has issues. We are getting no where simply countering each other’s edits.

To make progress, lets move forward then. Specifically what element of the article do you think is incorrect or not neutral. Please identify them point by point so that we can address your concerns. If you are not willing to justify your changes rationally – do not persist in modifying this article. WikiRat 19:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

One can't remove the tags, because you want them removed. Yes, there are PoV problems here. In my check of a few sources, the original speculations from the sources, are mangified into fact. These things take time, and unilaterally removing tags is blanking. TIme is needed to work this. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly, one can't arbitrarily add tags because one doesn't like what an article says. Both the addition of a tag and the removal of a tag must be done with justification, and community standards, more or less, recognize good scholarship practices from bad.

Though I contend all claims (that I have contributed to this article) have either been sufficiently supported by source, or clearly identified in proper context, I agree time is necessary for you to make a case. Hopefully I've made this easier for you by providing links to the references cited where they exist on line.

I still would like to know roughly what you disagree with. Is it the apparent history of the apostles, post crucifiction Jerusalem, or perhaps the contention that Church Fathers recognize the antiquity of the British Church. Perhaps you dispute Celtic Christianity has any origins apart from Rome.

It sounds like you object to the connection between early Celtic Christianity (British) and the apostles, if so the connection has been made based upon what Church fathers have written, and re-written (links provided where possible) and not based upon nationalist reasons. Again, you should re-examine your own bias’ in terms of traditional church scholarship.

After reading your User page, I believe I understand a bit more about your motivation. I also ask you to be mindful of your interest in Catholic related stubs in your efforts to be neutral yourself, and if this is a crusade of sorts to not make is such. WikiRat 15:52, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I think this is a reasonable compromise; You haven’t shown how anything in this article is factually incorrect, though you have disputed the neutrality of the article. Therefore, I’m removing the “factually incorrect” tag and leaving the “neutrality disputed” tag.

If you provide examples of where this article is incorrect, we’ll put that tag back in. WikiRat 16:37, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I just ordered Annales Ecclesiatici from a rare book vendor in Germany, and hopefully shortly I'll be able to provide you with copies of the actual text if need be. WikiRat 16:53, 3 November 2005 (EST)

I can agree with a PoV tag. Don't assign me a PoV because of my faith. Rare books are fine if there is a tracable source. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The real problem I have is with you using enigmatic statements recorded by Church fathers living 100+ years after the fact, as well legends recorded by medieval chroniclers, as evidence for a hypothesis that not one history book I have ever read even mentions. This hypothesis has apparently failed the Google test- the only sites that even mention it are connected with British Israelism. The only sources that even mention your hypotheses definitely have specific religious and nationalist agendas. Not appropriate sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are by nature "mainstream." Wikipedia's NPOV policy neutrally addresses minority views, provided they have noticeable support among mainstream academia. The only sources that seriously support your hypothesis are not in line with these criteria. Yet you devote half the article to endorsing a decidedly fringe view. I also don't appreciate the way you refer to "modern scholars" in quotes, as if you think they're a bunch of dogmatists.

This is not to deny that Celtic Christianity has a distinct history outside Roman Christianity. It certainly does. Regardless, any competent historian will tell you Christianity was brought to the British Isles after the Roman conquest. The uniqueness of the Celtic Church was the result of Celtic adaptation of Christian traditions, not of pre-dating Christianity in Rome. Sorry, but what you are propounding qualifies as historical revisionism, which happens to be a pet peeve of mine.--Rob117 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rob117, however, the concept that Celts were Christianized before the fall of the Roman Empire is valid for an article. The article uses a lot of psuedo-history and lecture material from the 1960s that is not sourced properly, as it was in that time, and is today. Attempting to use variations among the Celts as proof they were Christianized earlier is not correct. The tonsure issue among them is strange, as that was the style for the Goths not Celts. We have work to do! Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---
Rob117, the statements you find enigmatic, are enigmatic to you because you disbelieve them. Read sequentially across time, in context they say exactly what this article says;

• Britain was Christianized before Rome: Tertullian, Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom
• The apostles brought the new religion to Britian: Rabanus Maurus, Bodleian MSS 108, Hipplytus, Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom
• This new faith was flourishing before Rome arrived: St. Augustine, Pope Pius XI, Council of Basle

Quite frankly, unless your selection of competent historians are reading primary sources and making sense of original work, they should not be considered competent. Otherwise, they are dogmatically reworking incestuous theories, with little regard for pesky, troublesome primary evidence. Personally I accept the comments of Tertullian, Eusebius, Maurus, Hipplytus, Badonicus and Dio Cassius as competent.

We don’t fit the evidence to prove a theory in scholarship, but we accept the theory suggested by the evidence. It is acceptable therefore to classify evidence as enigmatic within the article if evidence can be presented that suggests earlier sources are incorrect or not accurate. However their words cannot be excluded outright, because they are merely believed to be incorrect - they must be shown to be. The words and implications of the original authors cited above have more merit in this Wikipedia article than most others because they are connected to the subject of the article by fewer points of separation and have not been shown to be wrong.

People generally accept the authority of these early writers, but choose not to believe what they wrote, despite any lack of evidence to the contrary making these early citations ‘enigmatic’. If the writers are credible, and no evidence to the contrary exists, than we must accept the statements we find enigmatic whether we believe them or not.

As for the Google test, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and contains many titbits of arcane and obscure ‘facts’. Despite the Google test, this encyclopaedia is not simply a filter for Google. Read any article (say Irish history, Quantum theory) and you will find few of them actually do pass the Google test. Whats more, Googling most subjects almost always leads to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is suppose to be the authority on things not Google. Google is simply a search engine and represents popularity not correctness. By your recommendation then, Wikipedia should not be about correctness, but about popular belief, in which case the articles will only ever convey voguish schools of thought (or is that roguish?) and therefore be ever changing. We could resolve issues like this simply by voting on articles, and the most popular ones survive. That isn't how I see Wikipedia. Even so by your own admission, "Googling" this subject leads to a number of links which re-iterates this very same history, however you refute the source of that work, and not the work itself. Seems to me this test, then is a double edged sword.

I agree that the British Israelites have for some reason developed a particular interest in the history of the apostles after the death of Stephen. They’re interest seems to cause me endless grief. Quite frankly I don’t understand this particular interest as I don’t see the connection with their other theories, however despite their other beliefs, one can’t be incorrect all of the time.

On Dominick^(ŤαĿĶ)'s approach, I agree that the idea the Celts were Christianized before the fall of the Roman Empire is valid for this article. My goal originally was to flush out this history to something more than theory or debate, which is why I made effort to follow these claims back as far as I could. To my surprise, I found the contention by Church fathers, that the source of Christianity in Britain was the apostles themselves. These claims are worth of mention since they are credible. Ok, so there is a tradition substantiated by some pretty credible writers. I agree that the idea the apostles came to Britain is controversial, however I believe the evidence stands firm enough to support this history against superficial criticisms.

More incredibly, I found that some ancient sources have suggested that Joseph of Arimathea brought this new religion to Britain, and certainly this claim was accepted by the writers of the Doomsday book. I personally don’t know how I feel about this claim. Again I have not seen either alternative histories of Joseph’s later life, or evidence to the contrary. Therefore, though I may not accept this claim unreservedly, in the absence of other evidence feel that it merits at least mention though its validity placed in context.

In this regard, I have done a reasonably good jobs putting the substance of this article in context. I don’t doubt you reject this history, but I challenge you to do as I have done, and explain the evidence by finding evidence. If the early writers claims are true, their comments are not enigmatic at all. WikiRat 13:00, 4 November 2005 (EST)

Where is disagree with you is the writings from Tertullian, Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom do not match the depth of conjecture in the article. 'Rabanus Maurus, Bodleian MSS 108, Hipplytusand St. Augustine, Pope Pius XI, Council of Basle were all later authors, and can attest to the influence of this legendary theory, they are not primary sources. Reading the commentsf rom the ancient authors, there is scant to make up the rest of this article. Shall I toss markers where I think we need sources? Instead of arguing about the problems, which is not productive, we can remove those where the challenge is not met. We need to use wikipedia's standard. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant to say earlier, BTW that I wasn't around in the 60's and so haven't been influenced by thinkers from the 60's. Regardless, I'm willing work with you. Here are the quotes cited, can you provide me with an acceptable conjecture as to their meaning then:

..all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons--inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ .. Tertullian (AD 155-222)

the two Bethany sisters, Mary and Martha, Lazarus, St. Eutropius, St. Salome, St. Cleon, St. Saturnius, St. Mary Magdalen, Marcella (the maid of the Bethany sisters), St. Maxium or Maximin, St. Martial, and St. Trophimus or Restitutus. Rabanus Maurus (766-856 C.E.)

Leaving the shores of Asia and favoured by an east wind, they went round about, down the Tyrrhenian Sea, between Europe and Africa, leaving the city of Rome and all the land to the right. Then happily turning their course to the right, they came near to the city of Marseilles, in the Viennoise province of the Gauls, where the river Rhone is received by the sea. There, having called upon God, the great King of all the world, they parted; each company going to the province where the Holy Spirit directed them; presently preaching everywhere ... [Cardinal Caesar Baronius] (C.E. 1538-1609)

Caratacus, a barbarian Christian who was captured and brought to Rome ... Dio Cassius

In the year of our Lord, 63, twelve holy missionaries, with Joseph of Arimathea (who had buried the Lord) at their head, came over to Britain, preaching the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The king of the country and his subjects refused initially to become proselytes to his teaching, but in consideration that they had come a long journey, and being pleased with their soberness of life and unexceptional behaviour, the king, at their petition, gave them for their habitation a certain island bordering on his region, covered with trees and bramble bushes and surrounded by marshes, called Ynis-wytrin William Malmsebury (1126 CE)

These holy men built a chapel of the form that had been shown them. The walls were of osiers wattled together ... William Malmsebury (1126 CE)

Christianity was privately confessed elsewhere, but the first nation that proclaimed it as their religion and called it Christian after Christ was Britain. Jacob Sabellus (250 AD)

If a theory has been conjectured from quotes like these that is implausible, than I look forward to a better explanation or interpretation.WikiRat 13:52, 4 November 2005 (EST)

OK, extend that to tell me the source for most of the things past Ecclesiastical Structure: How separate was the Celtic church? I mean which one of those sources talked about what the tonsure was? Show me the Easter date cacuulation method source, from a contemporary, not what medeval writer conjectured (or maybe invented for an later argument). Show me from a source the proof that "1-2-1, penitent to confessor private confession. This was a Celtic invention" is true. Sriously, back then people stood up in assembly before Mass to confess, from the pew. (I have this image of, "I confess that stole and ate his pig" causing an epic row)

Show me that Witches were not persecuted. I find that not only hard to believe, but amazing that a single Celtic Christian would not strike back (piously or impiously) at the ancient slavers, among the slaves was St. Patrick. From these pages, on the entry of Palladius

It is a question whether or not it is the same person who, in 431, was sent as first bishop to the Christians of Ireland: "Palladius, having being ordained by Pope Celestine, is sent as first bishop to the Irish believing in Christ."

We are talking about pre-Arian Catholics, so while it is possible there were Christians operating before 400, not much is known, and is seems as I said, a lot of sources are lacking. The concept is not in doubt, but the way this is written is not looking too factual. DOnt argue the concept, lets stay on task. If you made an account it would be nice, we can validate you beyond your IP address. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 19:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather Embarassed – I didn’t actually contribute any of the content after Ecclesiastical Structure: How separate was the Celtic church? I suppose, before getting my tail feathers up about criticisms, I should clarify what is actually being criticized (sorry?). I was aware that there were differences between the two churches (because the Synod of Whitby was trying to solve practical problem). However I haven’t actually tried to research what those differences were. I just accepted that the contributor to those portions of the article was diligent, but if you want, I will commit to verifying them for correctness? WikiRat 14:44, 4 November 2005 (EST)

Another comment - I have done work (in a history of Scotland course) on witchcraft in Scotland, and I think Scotland's record at least, on persecuting witches or not might be easily verifyable. WikiRat 14:51, 4 November 2005 (EST)

The statements are enigmatic not because I choose not to believe them, but because they've been on the books for hundreds of years and yet nobody until you sought to pay them any mind. Dio Cassius and Tertullian, the two earliest sources you cite, are still writing long after the events you claim they validate. Tertullian, writing perhaps 140 years after the death of Jesus, makes a statement about the extent of Christianity during his own lifetime, and includes Britain in his statement. He doesn't say when Britain was "subjugated to Christ," only that it is at the time of his writing. Dio Cassius, Tertullian's contemporary, is still writing about 120 years after the life of Caratacus, and the passage you cite is a suspected interpolation (see the article on Caratacus). Your sources are simply way too late, and many of them (Church apologists and medieval chroniclers) are of a questionable nature to begin with. You seem to have this idea that the "establishment" is suppressing evidence in favor of dogma.--Rob117 21:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was not written based upon one or two quotes. If it were than it should be easy to prove them false, prove my contributions wrong, remove the tag, restore order to Wikipedia. You identify yourself with the establishment (you call my contributions not-mainstream, therefore you must represent the establishment). You are trying to alter this article, remove or tarnish the evidence I cited. The establishment DOES appear to be trying to suppress evidence in favour of dogma. Regardless of when Tertullian was writing, he was writing before St. Augustine. Tertullian’s comments prove Christianity was in Britian as early as his life time. I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary, and this proves an assertion not accepted by the establishement. Where else have you seen it asserted Christianity was in Britain by 140 AD? If we simply ignore Tertullian and read your modern scholars – it wasn’t. However, how do we then make sense of Tertullian? Lets throw him out. Perhaps we can get away with just throwing this statement out. Dio Cassius ‘s statement has been scoffed at for most of this century. It doesn’t make sense to the establishment. However if we take his comment in context with the statement already provided by his peer, it seems to make sense. Tertuallian states that Christianity had come to Britian. Independently Dio Cassius describes the British chieftain Caratacus as a Christian. Add to that Hippolytus, St. John Chrysostom, and others, we don’t have a conspiracy of British nationalists here. I’m not a rocket scientist but its seems to me these statements are consistent and validate each other. Explaining them away strikes me as the harder task. For what purpose would Tertuallian, Dio Cassius, Hipplytus, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, and others be arguing that Christianity was brought to Britain by the apostles?

BTW they have been on the books for hundreds of years, however others, other than me have paid them some mind. For example; Maurus, Baronius, author of Bodleian MSS 108, Archbishop James Ussher, W.J. Conybeare, Dr. J.S Howson, Archdeacon J. Williams etc. Again, you dispute what these writers have written, please feel free to cite evidence that shows they were wrong. WikiRat 16:50, 4 November 2005 (EST)

I don't "represent" the establishment; my point is that there is no establishment. There is a general consensus that has come about through historical research; individual details differ in different accounts by different people, but the fact remains that your hypothesis is a huge revision of known history. It also qualifies as original research, which is against the rules. Ultimately, that's the clincher. You're doing all this research on your own. You don't take it to peer-reviewed journals to get it reviewed; you take it to an online encyclopedia and present it as though it were obvious information being suppressed by some shady establishment. If you really think this information is valid, submit it for peer-review before pasting it here. This is not the place to present original research, even if you're a PHD. Surviving peer-review is the key to getting unconventional theories accepted, not posting them here.--Rob117 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this last point is the heart of the matter. I am not doing any "original research" what-so-ever, nor am I revising known history as you claim. Every single point here presented was both known and accepted and constituted the orthodoxy practically since 140 AD through to the nineteenth century. Don't credit me for the ideas that the Christian religion was brought to Britain by someone other than Rome, at time that did not co-respond with the Roman invasion.

If nothing else, I have clearly shown that this argument was orthodoxy in times past. It was orthodox enough that Catholic council of Basle (1434) used it to quash a claim by the Catholic Church in Spain to seniority (they affirmed that of the British Chruch). It was also orthodox enough that when Cardinal Caesar Baronius, historian to the Vatican, presented his research to the Pope (on the antiquity of the British Church), he was lauded for his scholarship. It was also orthodox enough that the British crown recognized the tax-free status of tracts of land in Glastonbury as having extended back to ancient times. (When have you ever known a government to let anything stand in their way of taxation?). These ideas were accepted by Popes, Kings, historians.

Consider how many writings have survived from 100-200 AD, or 200-400 AD. There aren't that many are there? The further back you go the less there are. This is one of the reasons ancient documents are treasured as they are. They are viewed to be rare windows into the past, especially since we place particular merit on literary sources. If one or two documents from questionable sources were the basis for this line of thought in times past, it would be justified that modern scholarship question its validity. However it is not a source or two from questionable origins that gave rise this history, it is a dialogue that takes place across history between diverse scholars, most of whom are recognized as authorities on church history in just about every other regard. Show me where any scholar has examined Cardinal Caesar Baronius, or Tertullian, or Maurus and disputed their historical claims with evidence. As cited before, scholars such as Archbishop James Ussher have built upon this body of scholarship of ancient origins (British Ecclesiastical Antiquity), as did Conybeare and Howson in Life and Epistles of Saint Paul: Volume II. Show me where James Ussher's support for these claims has been refuted, or argued against? Are you saying James Ussher is a revisionist?

In this research, at most, I can be credited for gently reminding (arrogant?) modern scholars that their narrow, orthodox, twenty-first century views are not the end-all, be-all, definitive guide to the Ecclesiastical history of Christianity in Britain. Ironically, I do so by presenting orthodoxy from the past, which, to my mind, has only been swept aside, possibly ignored, certainly never adequately answered, addressed, reviewed or refuted. If you cannot present counter-evidence to these ancient scholars, I recommend you consider letting their work stand on its own merits. WikiRat 23:27, 4 November 2005 (EST)

What medieval historians said is irrelevant, as it is difficult to distinguish fact from myth in their writings. If modern scholars shifted away from past orthodoxy, there's obviously a reason for it- mainly that the things taken as evidence for it are very dubious.

Ussher was not a revisionist as he was simply citing tradition. Your work is revisionism because you are taking a long-discredited tradition and stating it as fact.--Rob117 05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What medieval historians said is irrelevant? -- That comment is the epitome of arrogance. I suppose they were just dumb historians that had no access to the internet. What did they know? Not only but they were biased - many of them were monks and priests and such. They may have been the bulk of the literate class, but hey - what did they know?

Einstein's work is approach 100 years old in the next few, Sir Isaac Newtons work (gravity?) is coming up to 343 years, and I suppose it is irrelevant? How about those silly greeks like Pythagoras? Don’t you realize that one day in 500 years most of the ideas produced today will be viewed the same way? What your argument then, is that they are out of date? By that same argument, anything anyone says today is irrelevant because it too will be out of date. It doesn’t matter that this consensus you speak of is often built upon the work of others? There is no sense in arguing against the irrational.

Your work is revisionism because you are taking a long-discredited tradition and stating it as fact.

Wouldn't that make me a revivalist, rather than a revisionist? What you are doing is catagorizing an idea that has been accepted by more scholars, for a longer period without providing anything other than personal belief. You are also invalidating the work of others based upon the era it was written? without providing substantial reasons for rejecting their work. This is dogmatic.

If this idea was discredited (rather than neglected), provide references, cite evidence. You seem to be strangely silent in sources department yourself. I've provided my sources. I offer them up to scrutiny. Please stop being strangly silent on your sources. If there are reasons as you suggest that the writers I have quoted are to be discarded, I look forward to seeing your evidence.WikiRat 01:33, 5 November 2005 (EST)

The burden of proof is on you, not me. My source is Encarta 97 Encyclopedia, along with every history textbook I've ever read. That's the problem. If you insist on putting an idea that is not accepted by enough scholars to even merit a passing mention in Encarta, it just doesn't belong here. Nobody's saying you're necessarily wrong, just that you're posting information that is highly unusual, and, to be honest, hard to verify. An online encyclopedia is not the place to post novel theories. The place for that is in peer-reviewed publications. That's key. Peer-review. If you can get your work through peer-review, then you can post it here. Please. Follow standard procedure if you want to be taken seriously.

And I stand by what I said about medieval chroniclers. They are indeed notorious for accepting tradition as fact. Where do you think all the legends about King Arthur come from?--Rob117 01:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Rob here - including WikiRat's reconstructions is a clear violation of WP:NOR (that's "no original research"). Citing primary sources in a way different from how any modern scholars do is one of the most basic forms of original research. And I agree that the quote from Tertullian is unclear - since, in Tertullian's time, most of Britain was not "inaccessible to the Romans," it seems possible, at least, that what is being referred to is those parts of Britain which the Romans never conquered. Not that I'd ever heard that the Picts were Christians. The Dio Cassius quote, on the other hand, is just weird. It seems almost certain to be a later interpellation. john k 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

From the original research page:

What is excluded from articles?

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
• it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
• it introduces or uses neologisms.

All of the above may be acceptable content once it has become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:

• the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. --Rob117 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation markers

OK Adding {{fact}} markers, this has gone on long enough. If it isn't sourced, we can start pruning. I you use the same sources, we should have articles that would look pretty similar in the way of facts. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done most of the article prior to Ecclesiastical Structure: How separate was the Celtic church?. If no one volunteers, I'm willing to try to find the citations for parts beyond what I have contributed. I'll research further to find out what the differences where between the churches and how they were documented historically. WikiRat 04:25, 5 November 2005 (EST)

One thing we can do, is deternime the period that makes up "Celtic Christianity" as distinct from Rome. St. Patrick was in union with Rome, and brought orthodox (at the time) Catholic principles to a pagan Ireland, from the prevailing perspective. We need to talk about things that are not influenced by that, and are from the older PRE-Roman missionaries, Pre-5th Century(>400AD) to really deal with this topic properly. I also think some citation requests can be removed faster than others. Shall we start there?Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent recommendation. Additionally, I think we should determine (if possible) how orthodox, Celtic Catholic principles were (remember that the Catholic church held a series of councils later (1409 onwards) to establish orthodoxy between regional Churches). I know this is probably a sensitive subject, but if we can find source documentation outlining the differences, we can probably also make that later assessment. WikiRat 23:24, 5 November 2005 (EST)

That is a different concept. This deals with Pre-Patrician, St. Patrick, christians in Ireland and the conflicts with the orthodox Patrician-mission Catholics. For example, we can't claim Catholic Saints as rival creations of a Celtic rival Church. Up to Trent, there were a lot of variations between regions, and Trent made it clear all Catholics were going to have fewer variations, including in the order of Mass, which was the last act of several that forged a closer orthodoxy in the Church. If this happened sooner, the schisms of Luther and others may have never occured, as local Bishops had practices that were not acceptable elsewhere. This article isn't about differences, it is about origins, and if the Celtic Church was a Sui Juris Church. This is the more important issue, not to decide, but to focus on this entry. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---
These debates have detracted from this article and left it in a mess. I think the entire things should be re-written and shortened. I did not write anything after the section Ecclesiastical Structure: How separate was the Celtic church? though I have been defending the entire article in its present form, nor am I offended by a more balanced approach, as long as there are reasonable attempts at balance.

I agree that a re-write is probably prudent. I do however think that it is reasonable to include what the ancient church writers wrote about Celtic Christianity since their views are preserved even if you portray it as disputed (I know, I know many modern scholars don’t agree, however all of those contributions have been referenced with citations and can be placed in context.

The goal here is to have a balanced article is it not? Can we not put down the swords and pick up plowshares then? If no one else volunteers, I'll volunteer to do the first round of revisions. I think for now it is reasonable to take out the section high-lighting the differences between Celtic Christianity and Roman Christianity as I do agree that hasn’t been sufficiently documented. I will honour my word to flush that out, but that will take time).

Is this not a reasonable approach to ending this détente otherwise? WikiRat 10:26, 7 November 2005 (EST)

Primary sources, the assumption that anything written after 400AD only should go to a belief that Celts were christianized before 400AD. I think we will find the data much more scant. If the lecturers (above on this talk page) published notes, online, we can review them for their sources. Otherwise, this article is going to get a real chop if we do what you propose. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

logged in to edit

Please make sure you are logged in to edit. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(PS I cannot log in because I have forgotten my password, and when I ask Wikipedia to email passwords to my email address, I never seem to get them (perhaps they are going to some other account) --WikiRat 12:05, 7 November 2005 (EST)

Perhaps you should contact an admin for help. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I just reread the disputed portions of the article

I just reread the article to see if WikiRat has a point, and I have to say I still think this is original research. The fact that late Roman and medieval chroniclers had a tradition about Christianity being brought to Britain independent of Rome does nothing to establish the accuracy of this tradition. Dio Cassius' reference to Caratacus is apparently dismissed as an interpolation by most modern scholars, and Tertullian's comment says only that Christianity was in Britain by his lifetime, which was a century after the Roman conquest. I really think all this material belongs solely in the "tradition" section. "Known and generally accepted" should stick to peer-reviewed publications.--Rob117 04:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The tradition section needs serious editing, itself. john k 06:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

--
Anyone with a mind to tracing the actions of the apostles after their persecution in Jerusalem (which is one of the things I'm interested in) can re-construct from ancient sources exactly what is written here. The only scholars that have a problem with these claims are either Roman Catholic Scholars or those influence by Catholic research. The dismissal of Dio Cassius’ comment is made by whom? By Historians of the Roman Empire, not by historians of ecclesiastical history, and furthermore, this dismissal is a recent one. I've already shown how that comment makes sense taking into account Tertullian (but not just Tertullian, check out St. Dorotheus' history of Aristobulus, or the writing of Theodoret the Blessed which speaks to Paul's travels, or how about St. Athanasius' who comments on how the faith in Britain conformed perfectly to the Council of Nicæa?). Here is an Eastern Orthodox site that has independently followed up on 70 of the early apostles (appointed in Luke), and supported the claims that apostles ended up in Britain. Specifically check out:

II. Saint Joseph of Arimathea

XXXIII. Saint Aristobulus

Why would Eastern Orthodox support this contention, unless they too had looked at the source documentation. This tradition isn’t new research, it isn’t new, and it isn’t fringe.

These traditions were held to be true for most of the period the Catholic Church existed. I have justified every contribution I’ve made. Can we pull out the tradition you object to and cite it as a tradition held by early church scholars (you must agree that this, at least, can be shown). Differentiate what was held from what is held now? I still contend however that in any re-write traditional Catholic dogma should not prevent the article from portraying a broader view of Britain's Christianity.

I know you guys have a very different understanding, but please bear with me here. I'm willing to work with you distpite your opposition, I will justify everything, you have to be willing to consider (even ever-so-briefly) that maybe in some respects, my points may be valid. As long as the article is founded justified references, we should be able to work through disputes. [User:WikiRat|WikiRat]] 11:23, 8 November 2005 (EST)

The Orthodox published a book that mentioned that, however, it conflicts with Patricks claims after 400AD. You are right about Catholic Dogma, but there is no dogma at all in Catholicism prevents this theory, the objection is the historical record. Looking at your sources, without the counter sources of history doesn't paint a full picture. THe article says they went to Britan, and later sources say the same thing, how do you know a source was taken correctly? Saying there were there is plausable, saying there were some who heard of Christ or were Christians is possible, saying a Sui Juris Church existed there is not provable from the sources. That conclusion is the problem. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The dismissal of Dio Cassius’ comment is made by whom? By Historians of the Roman Empire, not by historians of ecclesiastical history, and furthermore, this dismissal is a recent one.

But the fact of the matter is that it is dismissed, and has been for most of the past century. If you disagree with this dismissal, fine. But the fact that it used to be accepted doesn't change the fact that your work is original research. If I decided to revive a pre-Mendelian theory of genetics for example, and cited sources that were written before Mendel and are dismissed by modern scholars, that would be original research. And that's exactly what you're doing: reviving an old tradition that has been dismissed for a century, and citing ancient and medieval sources that are also dismissed. You are also extrapolating far too much from some of your sources- if Tertullian said their were Christians in Britain by his lifetime, I don't think most modern scholars would dispute this. But Tertullian says only that they were there in his lifetime; he did not say how long they had been there, or how many there were. Yet you use this quote to support your contention that there was a lacrge Christian presence in Britain before the Roman conquest.

You also seem to be under the impression that I have some religious objection to your work. I don't. I'm not Christian, so what the Catholic Church says is not relevant to my objections; my objections stem purely from the fact that this material hasn't been peer-reviewed. As Wikipedians, I think we all have experience with opening up an article on a subject we have some familiarity with, starting to read it, and going "WTF?" after reading a certain statement that just doesn't make sense. Most of the time, these statements were written down by a)someone with an agenda, b)someone who is simply misinformed, or c)someone who has swallowed a "cool new theory" (i.e. Erich von Daniken) uncritically. I won't hide the fact that I think you fall into category C, and I hope you can understand why I ask you to send this material into a historians' journal or something for peer-review before posting it here.--Rob117 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite a bit of comment about the differences between the churches is made by The Venerable Bede. I'll try to summarize what he wrote and compare to what is written in the article. The calculation of Easter was one of the things the Roman Christian's protested. WikiRat 13:13, 10 November 2005 (EST)

Is the Bede so Venerable? This talk page is revisiting the Reformation: new terms of reference needed - otherwise, common sense is welcome.--shtove 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic my arse

Catholic means universal - to apply the term to a "Celtic" church results in an oxymoron. Logically, there can only be one catholic church - although any church may claim the title. Protestants apply here - but no hot-gospelling or violent marching: you will be heard and judged.--shtove 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm unable to comment on your bum, the Scottish Episcopal Church services make it clear that they consider themselves part of the catholic church, though certainly not the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt others do the same. Since the Roman papists can be seen as a schism from the Eastern Orthodox Church, there's a lot of people out there convinced that they're in The Universal Church and other claimants aren't. .....dave souza 14:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some would argue that applying the term to a "Roman" Church is pretty oxymoronic, too. --Sean Lotz 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I love to see non-Catholics trying to rewrite the history of Christianity...marvellous fun. The Catholicity of the Roman Church...well...just look at what happened to those who split - they continued to split....and split...and split...and split, to the point of being irrelevant. As for the Roman Church being a schism from the 'Orthodox', how amusing - "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam" fellas, read it and weep. Iamlondon 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed... soon.

I am not learned in early Christian history, so I can't do this myself, but someone needs to fix this article. The entire article reads like a polemic against "modern scholars" (as if they were some sort of monolithic block), and accuses them of parroting Catholic dogma and ignoring evidence. These charges are arrogant and ignorant; if these alleged early references to Christianity in Britain as early as the reign of Tiberius are anything but interpolations and legends, why are they ignored by modern scholars? While the authors of most of this article seem to believe there's some sort of conspiracy going on to deprive Britain of its Christian heritage, the more logical explanation would be that the references simply aren't taken seriously because they don't fit with the vast majority of archaeological and other evidence.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What it comes down to is that people trust us to give information that they can use on research papers. Hence, we should not so rashly dismiss the consensus arrived at by three centuries of serious historical scholarship.--Rob117 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. In the spirit of NPOV, I acquiesced to a few people adding their POV of the Celtic Church -- & this is the result. (There appears to be a number of individuals who embrace their own fanciful version of the Celtic church, so it is fair to say some space needs to be devoted to expounding it -- but they are intolerant of any other POV on this subject.) Short of rolling this article back to a version from some time in last summer, I have no simple solution for cleaning this article up -- which would introduce its own issues. -- llywrch 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic christianity as third body

There is little debate that early Celtic Christians observed practices divergent from those in the rest of Europe. The debate about the existence of Celtic Christianity is important because the existence of a separate Christian Celtic Catholic Church, if verified, counters the Roman Catholic Church's claim to supremacy in Europe, making it the third body of practising Christians in Europe, along with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church

This passage in my opinion should be removed or extensively modified. Before the centralisation of the Catholic Church, many regional churches had their own rites and practices. An example is the church in the iberian peninsula, whose very different mass rituals are still practised in Toledo with special permission. If anything all these regional churches, from a time when the Pope only had ceremonial precedence in the western church and no real power over it, counter the Pope's claim to supremacy. However it is wrong to say that "early Celtic Christians observed practices divergent from those in the rest of Europe" since so was the case in many important parts of "the rest of Europe" (such as Spain); and also wrong to state that it was "the third body of practising Christians in Europe". This claims to me sound like opinions defending the special place of the Anglican church beside the Catholic and Orthodox ones, and as opinions should not be part of a wikipedia article. 212.201.76.153 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, I suggest that you invent a user id and make the corrections. It would be nice if you gave references, which would improve this article ClemMcGann 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"The debate about the Church's existence"

This section troubles me greatly. I think that, as it now stands, it does not actually say anything meaningful. The first paragraph contains no information, and the second paragraph is wrong. The Roman contention is not that St. Peter founded the Church, and in all my twenty five odd years as as Celtic Catholic (that means I get to hear all sorts of loopy theories), I have rarely heard anybody claim that Jesus sent the apostles to Britain in the sense this paragraph seems to assert. (Of course, there is the tradition of Jesus at Glastonbury, and St. Joseph of Arimathea and the Virgin Mary, but that is a different issue than what this paragraph seems to mean.)

I hate deleting articles or paragraphs outright. But unless somebody does a rewrite before I do, or explains how this section actually carries meaning I am too dense to see, I think I may just delete it. Not now; but later. --Sean Lotz 00:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this material seems like utter nonsense. You've got a straw man debating against an extremist fringe position. I say remove the whole thing. The whole article seems mostly to be a mess. john k 15:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Those two paragraphs appear to be a much-altered version of what I wrote a long, long, time ago. Here is how those 2 paragraphs read when I wrote them:

It is easy to exaggerate the cohesiveness of the Celtic Christian communities. Their members never saw themselves in opposition to the Catholic establishment based on Rome as did the Arians, Priscillianists or the Donatists in North Africa. Even at the height of the conflict between these communities and other Christian groups, they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope and acquiesced to his specific commands.

On the other hand, these communities did see themselves as separate from their competitors, the Anglo-Saxons. An early Welsh ecclesiastical rule levied penalties for interacting with the English, and for sharing communion with them. When St Augustine attempted to meet with a delegation of seven British bishops on the borders of the domains of Ethelbert of Kent, these bishops refused to talk or even dine with his party; and when Aethelfrith of Northumbria went to battle with Solomon, son of Cynan, king of Powys, hundreds of British Christian monks are said to have assembled to pray for the Welsh king. It is noteworthy that the British failed to attempt to convert the Anglo-Saxons, and that the successful Celtic missions had come from further away, from the Dalradian Scots.

Any interest in restoring what I originally had written? If so, I could prioritize the task of finding sources for this part. -- llywrch 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any complaints with what you have above, except that I would prefer to say "primacy of the Bishop of Rome," rather than "supremacy of the Pope." ("Pope" carries connotations which are more modern that the era under discussion, and a lot of history of developing theology and polity.) It certainly is a far sight better than what is there now. If you would like to re-add it, I would go along. Give it another go-round in the add-delete-add struggle which is the glory of Wikipedia.--Sean Lotz 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done -- with the modification you suggested. Sources to follow (the books are at home & I'm currently at work.) -- llywrch 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, more accurately, with half the modifications I suggested. (I do still prefer the term "Bishop of Rome" when writing about this period, but substituting "primacy" for "supremacy" helps a lot.) But thanks for doing it. I look forward to your sources. My books, too, are at home, but in boxes, since I moved recently and have not finished unpacking. I feel like an amputee without them easily available. --Sean Lotz 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

revision

I took the time to revise sections of the article that were emnarassingly in error or behind in scholarship. I don't imagine any problems with the changes, but message me if so. Cheers. Lostcaesar 12:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text

This text was added:

Early Christianity in Celtic lands had a more natural, less imperial feel than it did elsewhere and it’s spirituality is reviving today. This has a strong sense of God’s presence in creation and in everyday life, celebrates God through all the senses, releases creativity, respects both women’s and men’s gifts and values contemplation. Celtic Christians see life as a pilgrimage, use earthy yet poetic prayers, and have a vivid sense of saints, angels and the unseen world.

They believe that what is deepest in us is the image of God. Sin has distorted but not erased it. However, the struggle against evil in the human and the spirit world is real. Memorising Scripture, praying daily following the natural rhythm of the sun and the seasons, and working with a soul friend to overcome destructive passions are a means to this. Many Celtic prayers are associated with simple events such as rising in the morning, lying down at night, cleaning a hearth or baking bread.

It is certainly a well meaning edit. The problem is, however, that (1) it is unsourced, and (2) discussing something other than what the article is expressly about, i.e. the Early Medieval form of religious practice. If there is a modern day movement of similar name we can include that, but it would need to be in a separate section, or perhaps a separate article. Lostcaesar 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism?

Dear Lostcaesar, You reverted the sentence "After a successfull invasion and a military victory, king Henry II of England imposed Roman Catholicism to Ireland at the Synod of Cashel in 1172" as being an anachronism. Please explain. Harry Stoteles 12:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What does "to impose Roman Catholicism into Ireland" mean in a 12th century context? Lostcaesar 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This would be clearer: "After a successfull invasion and a military victory, king Henry II of England imposed Roman Catholicism to Ireland as the only permitted practice at the Synod of Cashel in 1172" . Harry Stoteles 13:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem any clearer to me. Lostcaesar 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet the Irish Christians of the time would have been surprised to have been told that they weren't "Roman Catholic." There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that they did not recognize the authority of the Pope, the nine Ecumenical councils also recognized in western Europe, or apostolic succession; they may have disagreed with some of the practices of the other churches, but this was out of respect to hallowed tradition, rather than any desire to be a different church. Any proof that Irish Christians travelling abroad were seen as heretics by other Catholics at this time? -- llywrch 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in the 12th century Latin West, I dont know what it would mean to be "Catholic" but not "Roman", or why an English's king's actions would have been any more Roman than anyone elses (and this is the King who was on the opposite side as Thomas a Becket, no?). Lostcaesar 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody be so kind to tell me what the conclusion of the synod of Cashel in 1172 was? Harry Stoteles 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered tha same thing, & consulted Daibhi O Cronin's Early Medieval Ireland: 400-1200 (which happens to be on my bookshelf), & it didn't even mention this Synod. Although I've been following this article off & on for years, I honestly don't remember how that item got into the article. I left a note over at the Ireland WikiProject talk page, & hopefully someone who knows Irish Church history will get back to us. -- llywrch 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If its not in O Cronin's tome then forget it, I say. Lostcaesar 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping you waiting. This is what I found:

1)"The origins of Cashel as an ecclesiastical centre go back to the grant by Murtagh O'Brien of the Rock to the Church and the subsequent synod in 1101. At the Synod of Rathbreasail (1111), which fixed its boundaries, it and Armagh were proposed as the two Irish metropolitan sees. When the four province system was set up at the Synod of Kells (1152), Cashel became a the de jure metropolitan of the southern province. Henry II of England received the submission of the southern bishops in Cashel in 1172 and convened several reform synods. In the 13th and 14th centuries its bishop was elected by the chapter and there was a notable number of Cistercian and Franciscan bishops. In subsequent centuries there were numerous cases of royal interventions in the provisions of archbishops. [1]

2) Sir Charles Bruce in British Empire Review  :— ‘In 1172 Henry II of England, supported by a Bull of Pope Adrian IV, the only Englishman who ever occupied the papal chair, assumed the title of King of Ireland and consolidated his dominions by an organised system of expropriation of the Irish and re-settlement by large grants made to Norman barons. This was the origin of the land question in Ireland and of a policy designed to solve it by rooting out the Irish from the soil, confiscating the property of the septs, and planting the country with English tenants. Had Ireland been left to itself, the Norman invasion would probably have followed the course of the Norman invasion of England, and resulted in an Anglo-Irish union consolidated by intermarriage. But every step towards such a union was met by enactments of the English Government prohibiting the adoption by English settlers of Irish customs and the Irish language, while intermarriage was punished by mutilation and death.’

Will this do for you to accept my statement "After a successfull invasion and a military victory, king Henry II of England imposed Roman Catholicism to Ireland at the Synod of Cashel in 1172" ? Harry Stoteles 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that is admirable and interesting work. However, I do not see what that has to do with "Roman Catholicism", or how Ireland wasn't Catholic and devoted to Rome before 1172. So I would have to say no, I don't believe it supports the statement. Lostcaesar 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text. I just don't know what it means. Do historians even talk about "Celtic Christianity" in a 12th century context? What does it mean there? What does "Roman Catholicism" mean and how is it different from "Celtic Christianity"? We need some sources. Lostcaesar 07:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that historians rarely speak of ‘Celtic Christianity’ after the 12th century. Yet, the Celtic influence continued: the article mentions the penitential rite. Scotus would argue the Marian mysteries with Aquinas. Cashel needs to be mentioned as an end-point in a process which began with Whitby. However we must avoid any unwarranted sectarian innuendo.ClemMcGann 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Celtic and Roman Christianity was at stake at the synod of Cashel. It is unacceptable to delete a text that has been agrumented. I understand it may be hard for many people to face the historic reality, but that can be no reason for such behaviour. Harry Stoteles 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Harry, you're missing the point of that passage. Accepting the overlordship of the English king did not make them Roman Catholics: they were Catholics before that moment, & remained Catholics afterwards. Had they not been Catholic, they would have been considered heretical -- just as the Christians in the Byzantine Empire, or living beyond under Arab rule -- were considered heretical, & denied communion with the rest of Europe. What this synod did was allow the English to have a say in the selection of bishops in Ireland, nothing more. While this was an important development to the Irish (it deprived them of some of their freedom & gave support to English territorial claims over that island), as far as it affected their Christianity this synod had negligible effect. -- llywrch 20:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is biassed by the Roman Catholic Church. --Harry Stoteles 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry, I think you need a source to support your claims before we can discuss this more. Lostcaesar 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it biassed? If the Irish Catholics had been excommunicated until this synod, then they are a separate church, just like the Orthodox Christians or Ethiopian Church. If not, then they are simply a national subgrouping, like the French, Spanish or US churches, all of which differ over issues like birth control. (IIRC, US Catholics are far more tolerant about abortion than their European co-worshippers.) The Catholic church is hardly a monolithic entity -- as I am reminded by others more knowledgable than me from time to time. -- llywrch 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Links censorship

Could anybody please explain, what link from the following is irrelevant:

• Celtic Saints & The Early Church
• [http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM17/Friendship.html Soul Friendship

in Early Celtic Monasticism-part I]

• Saving Celtic Spirituality, Christianity Today Magazine
• The Whole Russian Orthodox Church Officially Honours the Saints of the Isle

Why ALL of them were removed for clearly unexplained reasons? And what is the difference between them and existing links? Why not to censor "references" and "sources" the same way in someone's personal POV.Ans-mo 06:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You would do much more for keeping these external links if you avoided language like "links censorship" & set forth a cogent argument why they should be kept. Otherwise, the rest of us will just sit back & watch both sides beating each other silly over this matter. -- llywrch 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont insist on keeping ALL the above links, though any of them bears necessary information for possible use in the article expansion and the topic illustration. But why remove ALL of them, just because they were added by one user at one time, this is my point.Ans-mo 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they can? :D -- llywrch 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the links between the Coptic Church and the Celtic Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.81.88 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of British Isles

The British Isles covers all the areas mentioned and is therefore an appropriate summarisation of the geographical areas. As for the template, I say keep it in this article. It provides many useful links to other related articles. I simply do not see a problem with it. 86.27.229.204 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the opening paragraph to remove ambiguity - supported by existing references --Bardcom (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also replaced the inappropriate "British" template --Bardcom (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Baseless claim

In the intro it says this

"that is, among Celtic/British peoples such as the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Cumbrians, and Gallic. It generally excludes the Anglo-Saxons and some Picts."

Despite the fact that Irish "Celtic Church" representatives did bring the Celtic Church to both of the latter groups. Columba brought it to the Picts. St Aidan brought it to the Angle Kingdom of Northumbria based on the island of Lindisfarne. Northumbria's Christians would remain part of Celtic Christianity until the Synod of Whitby which saw it alligned with the Catholic Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Appealing to the East

I removed this statement. One of those sources, Early British Kingdoms, is not a reliable source, and the other is a primary source of sorts. At any rate they do not provide evidence that insular Christians appealed to the authority of the Eastern patriarchs over that of Rome. Before and during this time, and even after, there were a number of Popes and other Western prelates who had come over from the Eastern patriarchates; this is certainly not evidence that the Western church was submitting to outside authority. At this time all these churches were in communion with each other.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I would rather say that the church was ready to recognise papal authority if any emanations of such had reached Britain (but not via Caterbury obviously). Irish monasteries on the Continent were generally very pro-papal. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody contended "that the Western church was submitting to outside authority". You write "At this time all these churches were in communion with each other" and that is what was said: that some British churchmen appealed to (or were backed by) other Metropolitans. Come to think of it Pelagius is a bad example - before the schism - but there's no doubt that the early life of David says he got the pallium from Jerusalem AFTER that Metropolitan had broken from Rome. See here The British bishops refused to acknowledge Gregory's authority to appoint Augustine and to determine the date of Easter - they refused for over a century more. How can you represent this as a total submission to the Roman Metropolitan?? In what way is this a novel interpretation of a primary source?? (And Columbanus has nothing to do with this.) Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who says "The British bishops refused to acknowledge Gregory's authority to appoint Augustine"? What source is there for this? They had their people & Gregory had the Anglo-Saxons. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how the statement is relevant. The sources just give examples of British Christians interacting with Eastern churchmen, they don't establish, to my mind at least, why that would be relevant. Jerusalem certainly was in communion with Rome at that point, as all those patriarchates were in communion with each other then.

On Augustine's mission, even at the height of the contention over it, there is no evidence that the native clergy ever rejected the pope's authority. They refused to acknowledge the authority of Augustine and Canterbury over them, and maintained their Easter dating and tonsure, but this isn't the same as rejecting the Pope. If they had, Bede surely would have mentioned it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"They had their people & Gregory had the Anglo-Saxons". According to Bede (Augustine’s Seventh Question, using Sellar, online);

Gregory answers.—We give you no authority over the bishops of Gaul... but as for all the bishops of Britain, we commit them to your care, that the unlearned may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, and the perverse corrected by authority.

So the see of Canterbury is in charge of all the other sees by order of the Bishop of Rome? And (Book 2,2) "Augustine, with the help of King Ethelbert, drew together to a conference the bishops and doctors of the nearest province of the Britons" in response to which; "seven bishops of the Britons, and many men of great learning" whom Augustine enjoined to keep "the custom of the holy Roman Apostolic Church" "set themselves to contradict all he said" and rejected his authority, expressly granted by Rome. Gregory named the See of Canterbury the primate of Britain by written decree, and the British bishops said "get stuffed". They are still living in the world of local rites and locally-appointed bishops, in despite of the Pope. They could legitimately argue that no council had decided this. They rejected the final authority and the new universalism of Rome that had been claimed over the Latin west since the schism. They had to be forced to comply by armies. Redheylin (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fairly accurate, but something of an oversimplification of what was happening. The pope's authority and jurisdiction over Britain and Western Europe was never in question. However, no pope had ever used his authority towards something like the Gregorian mission before. The mission, which not only evangelized peoples, but erected churches and established a totally new diocesan network and attempted to establish a new hierarchy, essentially created a new regional church whole-cloth. It was so unlike anything that had ever happened in Britain that it almost would have been more unusual had British Christians accepted it. In Bede, it was this new hierarchy, and Augustine's claims of authority over the whole island, that the Britons were dead set against, there is no indication that they ever spoke out against the Pope per se. Indeed, this was the one issue in the whole ordeal that was never resolved; bishops were still bickering about authority during the Canterbury-York dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"They had to be forced to comply by armies" is not correct. There's no reason to believe that Celtic/Anglo-Saxon battles like the one attended by the monks of Bangor were anything other than the usual "political" conflicts. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Augustine's claims of authority" - it was Gregory who appointed Augustine, and therefore Gregory's claim of authority to appoint a bishop (or at least a primate or Archbishop) that was rejected.

"There's no reason to believe that Celtic/Anglo-Saxon battles like the one attended by the monks of Bangor were anything other than the usual "political" conflicts" - Johnbod, I certainly notice that the article's text has been altered in order to give this impression by removing;

"Augustine, is said to have threatened them, that if they would not accept peace with their brethren, they should have war from their enemies; and, if they would not preach the way of life to the English nation, they should suffer at their hands the vengeance of death."

and by saying "Bede has Augustine say". But this is putting a spin on the text, which actually says what it actually says; that the clergy were massacred because they refused Augustine's primacy. Bede does not "have Augustine say" anything, he reports what he has heard. The connection between the synod and the battle is clear and explicit both in Bede and in the ASC. Moreover, while Bede says;

"Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of the holy Bishop Augustine, though he himself had been long before taken up into the heavenly kingdom"

the ASC, less concerned with Augustine's reputation, put the battle of Chester in 604-5. Oops!

So there is the "reason to believe" - Augustine says "folllow me or the Saxons will kill you" - and they did kill them. Perhaps you'd share your reasons for believing otherwise? Redheylin (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point that the victorious king, Æthelfrith of Northumbria, and presumably all his army, were pagans! Bede is just spinning a line about divine providence; a good example of why primary sources should be used with caution. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another primary source, the Annals of Tigernach; "Cath Caire Legiow ubi sancti occissi swnt". The killing of the clergy is the most celebrated and unique fact of the battle. Bede has no reason to invent that "Augustine is said to have threatened them with death" - and I do not understand how the Northumbrians' paganism is "the point" that proves he did not. I'd point out that similar "prophecies" by Patrick and Germanus as to the results of non-compliance are recorded as having been followed by similar "wholly-unconnected acts of god". Redheylin (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Northumbrians were pagans, it is hardly likely that the aim of their campaign was to force the British bishops to accept Canterbury's primacy, nor did the campaign do so. If you believe the massacre was indeed a judgement of God on the British that is your affair, but it has no place in the article. This is getting rather silly here. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been silly from the beginning. Can you name another battle of the era in which hundreds of non-combatants were massacred - whether in fulfilment of a prophecy or not? And are you absolutely sure that there was no communication between Kent and Northumbria? Redheylin (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Redheylin, the quoted source is who is saying this was a prophecy that Bede attributes to Augustine, not me. It is Bede's interpretation that this fulfilled the prophecy. I did get the page number wrong, it's p. 180. A nearly identical statement is also made at our article Gregorian mission, where it is also sourced. You're not really arguing that Augustine compelled Aethelfrith to attack the Britons and slaughter the clergy?--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see I didn't include the cite. My bad, I've done it now. But it should be clearer that the source considers this a prophecy that Bede regards as being fulfilled at the battle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, for your delectation, are two other mentioned examples of Roman churchmen whose visits to Britain resulted in miracles. First up, Germanus - sorry, God - wipes out Vortigern (HB)

"Vortigern ignominiously flew from St. Germanus to the kingdom of the Dimetae, where, on the river Towy, [The Tobias of Ptolemy] he built a castle, which he named Cair Guothergirn. The saint, as usual, followed him there, and with his clergy fasted and prayed to the Lord three days, and as many nights. On the third night, at the third hour, fire fell suddenly from heaven, and totally burned the castle. Vortigern, the daughter of Hengist, his other wives, and all the inhabitants, both men and women, miserably perished: such was the end of this unhappy king, as we find written in the life of St. Germanus."

and;

"Take care," said St. Germanus to him, "that none of your friends remain this night within these walls. Upon this he hastily entered the city, brought out his nine sons, and with them retired to the house where he had exercised such generous hospitality. Here St. Germanus ordered them to continue, fasting; and when the gates were shut, "Watch," said he, "and whatever shall happen in the citadel, turn not thither your eyes; but pray without ceasing, and invoke the protection of the true God." And, behold, early in the night, fire fell from heaven, and burned the city, together with all those who were with the tyrant, so that not one escaped; and that citadel has never been rebuilt even to this day.

and here's Patrick, from the "Tripartite Life";

Swifter than speech, at Patrick's word, demons raised the wizard into the air, and they let him go (down) against the earth, and his head struck against a stone, and dust and ashes were made of him in the presence of all, and trembling and intolerable dread seized the hosts that were there.

and;

When Míliuc heard that Patrick was on his way to him, he closed his house upon himself and upon all his wealth, and he set fire to himself in it so that he was burnt with all his goods, in order that he might not believe in Patrick.

and;

Lugaid took the realm of Ireland; and thereafter he came to Achad farcha and there he said, ‘is not that the church of the cleric who said there would never be a king nor crownprince of our seed?’ Swifter than speech a bolt of fire was hurled against him and killed him.

It seems that, in this era, whenever the Roman church sent representatives to these isles, all the holy miracles that occurred centred around this kind of wondrous killing. That's why I rate Bede's words in the same bracket. Of course I am not going to personally synthesise.... I'd just like to point out the unusual coincidences as a valid reason to avoid wordings that seek to avoid or downplay the threats of violence that seem to have sprung so readily to the lips of these saintly gentlemen. Redheylin (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You write "You're not really arguing that Augustine compelled Aethelfrith to attack the Britons and slaughter the clergy?" - I did not use the word "compelled" but otherwise that is my own opinion, yes. I feel this is enough to insist on the highest quality sources for assertions re the British bishops' "veneration" of and obedience to the Bishop of Rome. Redheylin (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, interpreting primary sources for Wikipedia is a hazardous venture. Case in point, the Penguin edition of Bede gives a subtly different translation for this segment. After the Britons have refused to accept Augustine's authority over them, and rejected his three demands (including that they help him proselytize the Saxons):

“ Whereupon Augustine, that man of God is said to have answered with a threat that was also a prophecy: if they refused to accept peace with fellow-Christians, they would be forced to accept war at the hands of enemies; and if they refused to preach to the English the way of life, they would eventually suffer at their hands the penalty of death. And, by divine judgement, all these things happened as Augustine foretold. ”

Here it is implied more strongly that Augustine's threat is a prognostication of what would happen should the Britons not minister to the Saxons. As Lloyd makes clear, the subsequent account of the Battle of Chester is directly an attempt to make it look like Augustine's prophecy has been fulfilled.

Fortunately, we have reliable secondary sources we can use so we don't need to bother with rival translations or our personal interpretations of the material. Lloyd is a bit old but the work is a classic and one of the best surveys of early Welsh history available; it is still in print. Gregorian mission expresses the same sentiment as Lloyd, attributing it to Barbara Yorke's The Conversion of Britain: Religion, Politics and Society in Britain c. 600–800. I don't have access to that source, so I'll ask for some help with that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cu, I do not think it's so much a matter of translation as of using different recensions. All other things being equal we should use newer versions (though many contain commentaries so can be construed as secondary). But Bede seems to have been messed with over the years. Particularly, you'll find there appears to be a lacuna in all versions - Bede promises to return to "the siege of Badon-hill, when they made no small slaughter of those enemies, about forty-four years after their arrival in England. But of this hereafter." And "hereafter" never comes: what comes is the only loss of temporal sequence in the book. So this is why comprehensive secondary sources are needed. Anyhow, I am not going to try to impose some novel reading but on the other hand I accept that Martin of Tours was a soldier, Germanus led an army, Patrick's mission was accompanied by a Saxon fleet (Annals of Ulster) - I do not want to suppress this information in the service of an unrealistically sweetened picture of these Christian saints either. So this is why I am wary of the idea that those British bishops were dedicated to "Romanism" - in fact the British invented all this "Joseph of Arimathea" stuff purely in order to claim an apostolic succession that did NOT involve Rome. In this context I find it significant that David was made Archbishop in Jerusalem - and that this western Archbishopric has completely disappeared! I am also allergic to acounts of "the conversion of Britain" that imply that Britain (rather than the Saxons) was pagan and illiterate. Redheylin (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are multiple recensions and editions are as good a reason as any to stick with secondary sources on this matter - let's let them do the work of interpreting the whole mess for us. I don't think that this has resulted in an "unnecessarily sweetened" picture of Augustine in the current text. On Saint David, which I guess brings us back to the original discussion, I am still unconvinced that it's relevant. Just saying that David was consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem (or rather, that he was consecrated by a Patriarch of Jerusalem according to his Life, written hundreds of years after the timeframe being discussed here) doesn't establish why that matters in the context of this article. You are right that there's danger of understating the friction between British Christians and the Roman mission, but there is danger of overstating it too. There is a lot of conventional wisdom about Celtic Christianity that sprung up centuries later, and a lot of it really plays up the anti-Roman stance of the ancient "Celtic Church". But this is generally more reflective of the attitudes of those later centuries than of the historical era when Celtic Christianity was around.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

This article is littered with the usual pseudo-historical and pseudo-pagan tripe that passes for 'Celtic Christianity' in those God-awful books one sees in Glastonbury.

Any serious article on this subject which fails to place at the absolute prime and centre the position and foundational nature of it being IRISH and ascetic is a waste of time. To try and spin out a variation of history which hopes to give a view of some pan-Celtic but culturally independent series of Celtic Christianities is completely false.

Christianity as practised and understood by the Celtic peoples was one which has at its core an Irish Roman Catholicism. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.

Lindisfarne, Iona, Northumbria and the whole Northern European Christian movement did not fall from the damned sky - it was the result of Irish missionaries, Irish monks, Irish monasteries, Irish bishops, Irish scholars.

Delete the whole thing an start again.Iamlondon (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Augustine's prophecy

By way of completeness here is the quote from the Yorke book, pp. 118-119, as transcribed by Eadgyth:

“ In his account of the aftermath of the St Augustine's Oak meeting, Bede has Augustine prophesy that if the British clergy would not preach Chrstianity to the English, they would suffer vengeance at their hands - and saw the prophecy as being fulfilled in 604 when, reputedly, 1200 monks from the monastery of Bangor-on-Dee were slain by Aethelfrith of Northumbria at the Battle of Chester. Aethelfrith was not a Christian and the monks who had come to pray for the army were no doubt seen by him as a legitimate target, but atrocities of this type (no doubt comitted by both sides) must have left deep-rooted scars. Evangelisation depends not only on the willingness on one side to preach, but also on receptivity from the other party. ”

Lloyd says:

“ It was his purpose to show that on this occasion [the Battle of Chester] a prophecy uttered many years before by Augustine was fulfilled, to the effect that, that if the British clergy would not join him in preaching to the heathen English, they would assuredly be the victims of their barbaric rage. Accordingly he tells the familiar story... [of the monks getting slaughtered by the Northumbrians] ”

.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that Yorke accepts the 604 date - the implication is that Bede stretched the date to emphasise the non-involvement of Augustine (as Lloyd says), that in reality the come-uppance was immediate. It is also stated that "Evangelisation depends not only on the willingness on one side to preach, but also on receptivity from the other party", which emphasises the irony of the charge against the British bishops. I certainly do not want to resurrect the Anglican v Catholic fight - people like Yorke have well punctured this by emphasising the non-unity of Celtic Christianity (ie, there's no "Celtic church" and no Celtic patriarch other than the existing Metropolitans with the Pope primus inter pares, and the "Glastonbury" stuff is Platangenet propaganda) - but that's not really what I am doing, since Augustine is virtually the founder of the "Church of England"! And a great deal of PD scholarship used in these articles, such as the Cath Enc and Enc Britt, is sozzled in this polemical Victorian scholarship. So thanks for the Yorke, and I agree re secondary sources. BTW I also worked on Celtic Rite and Celtic mass - straight from the Cath Enc. I think the British church gets neglected though. I have been thinking of pasting in some hymns from the Welsh books. And I think - works like the lives of David and Gildas insist on the scholarship of the period - and there's nothing come down to us. You know how hard it is to figure out who Arthur was, for instance. I think a lot of material has been disposed of and this, together with the reputed fact that anybody who crossed an incoming Roman churchman ended up miraculously dead makes me suspicious. This doesn't stop me from taking interest in these figures - I spent ages going over sites connected with Patrick. But after all, as we read at Gregorian mission; others wonder if more political matters such as extending the primacy of the papacy to additional provinces and the recruitment of new Christians looking to Rome for leadership were also involved. Such considerations may have also played a part, as influencing the emerging power of the Kentish Kingdom under Æthelberht could have had some bearing on the choice of location. I am one of the others. The significance of David applying to Jerusalem is partly explained in the paper I quoted above as "anywhere but Canterbury!" - of course this suggests the detail was invented later since David was decades before "Canterbury" - but it emphasises the lasting resistance to bishops appointed by Rome - as continued by Henry 11 - and by extension to the Gregorian decree itself. Redheylin (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When I asked Eadgyth for the Yorke quote she mentioned the date.[2] She says that in another work Yorke uses the 616 date for Chester. I think it's just a matter of the different sources saying having different dates, as well as Bede's noncommittal statement on the date. But that's a discussion for elsewhere I think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Off topic

The issue of Augustine and the assertion of Roman supremacy - as against the willing "veneration" of the see of Rome - has been discussed at length above by several involved editors. The addition of cited statements of the "enforced supremacy" position cannot be taken as the occasion for one of those editors to declare the whole subject "off topic": this is unacceptable. Redheylin (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Augustine's "responsibility" for the Battle of Chester is a piece of Reformation polemic/conspiracy theory that relies entirely on the old date of 604, and is extremely far-fetched even then. None of the modern works on the period (not on the Reformation) bother to mention it, and nor should we. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you cannot produce a notable authority saying it is "far-fetched?" Redheylin (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find one that bothers to mention it when the subject is the battle itself, though some may exist. But I notice you have not produced any. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just checking that this is in fact your personal argument, and that your previous "off topic" reason has been properly dumped, thanks. The subject is the British church and its relations with Rome, of course. "The battle itself" has its own page. Redheylin (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

?? No, it is off-topic. You are still trying to insert an ill-defined hypothesis about the battle that no modern historian dealing with the battle bothers to mention. Not to mention that you do so in a way that suggests that Æthelfrith was a plausible tool for Rome or Canterbury. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again we have a contradiction. If "no modern historian dealing with early British Christianity" mentions it, then there's a lack of notable sources as regards this page. "Off-topic" means that the reception of Augustine and the massacre of Bangor have nothing to do with early British Christianity and its relations with Rome, whether or not it is discussed by whomever. The hypothesis itself is prefectly clear and concerns the attitude of Rome to the British church. Please clarify. Redheylin (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, does any "modern historian dealing with early British Christianity" treat the theory, whatever it is, as a remotely plausible one in actual fact (ie bearing on what actually happened), as opposed to mentioning it in the context of past beliefs as to divine retribution etc etc. I've seen no sign of this, but you plough on as though we were in 1550, or 850. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not talking about "divine retribution", but about whether Roman authority was imposed by force. Bede reports that Augustine attempted to coerce the British bishops by threats of violence, that's clear. The question is; whether he carried out his threats or else whether this battle, which appears to have come about solely as a by-product of the destruction of a monastery, had no known cause or purpose at all. Redheylin (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that unless modern historians are prepared to at least discuss the idea that the motivation for Æthelfrith's campaign was "to coerce the British bishops" into accepting Canterbury or Rome's primacy, the passage should be removed? Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jonbod that the material veers away from the article topic. The article is supposed to discuss a form of Christianity practiced in Britain and Ireland in the Early Middle Ages. However, the new material is largely a discussion of an interpretation of an event (or really, an interpretation of Bede's passages on the event) that arose in the post Reformation era, hundreds of years later. It would be one thing if we had modern scholars discussing the possibility of Augustine's complicity in the Battle of Chester as bearing on the study of sub-Roman British Christianity. But the only scholarly source we've seen so far that deals with the issue at all only does so in the context of Reformation-era polemics. This might have a place in another article, perhaps Battle of Chester, but certainly not in the main article on Celtic Christianity, which has to deal with hundreds of years of history. In the spirit of BRD I'm going to remove it here and try to work it into Battle of Chester.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As you may have found, it's already there, initially added in the same terms by Redheylin, & subsequently modified, 7 dare I say improved, by me and another. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'll get over there and do some work on it too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I also removed this. The given source, this webpage, does not portray the entire Gregorian mission as an attempt to assert Roman control over the British clergy, nor does it refer to the goal of converting the Saxons as "ostensible". What it does say is: "Certainly, the leader of the religious community at Bangor, St Dunawd, had considerable status in the contemporary British church, and led a delegation of bishops and other learned men of the British Church to a meeting in 603 with St Augustine, in his ultimately unsuccessful mission to establish the authority of the Roman church over the native church in Britain." And later: "The slaughter of a considerable number of British monks at this battle was justified according to Bede, by the recent rejection by the British Church of Augustine's mission to establish the supremacy of the Roman Church." These are very clearly referring not to the entire Gregorian mission, but specifically to Augustine's meeting with the British clergy in which they refused to accept him as their archbishop. That is already dealt with in the succeeding sentences, and more extensively in the next two paragraphs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cu, you write "the main article on Celtic Christianity... has to deal with hundreds of years of history". Quite right. You will note that the article explains, correctly, that "Celtic Christianity" is not consistent in all times and places. The section on the British church has recently grown greater, but still does not cover everything - I have pointed out that the early Welsh hymns are not discussed, and there's also a separate article on Christianity in Gwynedd only, and the Pelagian question is hardly touched; neither is the church of David, Gildas, the children of Brychan, etc. etc.. The article still dwells upon post-Columban Scottish Christianity (which is the sense of the term most generally understood perhaps) and uses the hundred-year-old Catholic Encylopaedia and "Enc. Brit" - neither of which is up-to-date or neutral. Even now the "British" section veers off into an unnecessarily prolix account of Oswy and Colman that is certainly "off topic" in that section.

I therefore propose to split off much of the new detail to a new page, which will alleviate the problem of space you raise. As regards your specific point I am able to provide more modern material discussing the matter in the given terms (you are still ignoring Gregory's having given Augustine supremacy over the British bishops, so I do not agree this is "clearly" separate from the Gregorian mission as a whole. Meanwhile the article still insists that all "Celtic" Christians at all times "venerated" the Roman see: I do not think this statement should stand unchallenged, particularly since it is not clearly cited. We are suffering a little from dual standards of citation, I think, overall, but certainly the problem of dealing adequately with these complex issues can be fixed by the introduction of a new article - Early British Christianity perhaps?? Redheylin (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod: "does any "modern historian dealing with early British Christianity" treat the theory, whatever it is, as a remotely plausible one in actual fact (ie bearing on what actually happened), as opposed to mentioning it in the context of past beliefs as to divine retribution"

The reformation theologians were specifically rejecting Bede's theory of divine retribution in favour of a theory of Roman political violence. This is absolutely plain - I cannot understand your repetition of this misapprehension. Further, the argument, which endured well into modern times, was profoundly influential upon the English reformation, and is notable for that reason. You write "So you agree that unless modern historians are prepared to at least discuss the idea that the motivation for Æthelfrith's campaign was "to coerce the British bishops" into accepting Canterbury or Rome's primacy, the passage should be removed?" I do not, for the above reason - and modern historians *have* discussed it. Though the usual modern interpretation is that Bede simply hit upon any event that seemed to make Augustine's remark look like a valid prophecy, this interpretation does not clearly account for the battle's purpose and its obvious extreme notoriety at the time Bede wrote: the "reformation" version of things is still acknowledged. For example Higham points out that Geoffrey of Monmouth can be read as expressing the view - another notable point, which should and willl be added - but this involves adding back the entire topic that has been removed on very questionable grounds. Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Any such stuff should be added in detail at the Battle article, before it is considered whether a much briefer reference should be reinserted here. So far relevance to this topic has not been demonstrated - what you say was certainly not "absolutely plain" at all. Johnbod (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. Your last point; the article said "In the English Reformation scholars such as Matthew Parker frequently argued that Augustine himself had been complicit in the massacre". You are saying that this reflects "beliefs as to divine retribution" - can you explain this contention? Once again you have confused this point with the issue of relevance. Here, given that the section is dealing with the nature of the Gregorian mission, an explanation of your contention of irrelevancy is required. Finally, you write; "Any such stuff should be added in detail at the Battle article, before it is considered whether a much briefer reference should be reinserted here." The matter IS actually being considered here and your argument is required here. You may respond to the note re. Higham above. Redheylin (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be being argued there, where there appear to be other informed watchers. I think we have had more than enough of it here. Obviously it is not off-topic there, even if purely a matter of historiography. The views of Geoffrey of Monmouth 500 years later are only worth mentioning in a very full account indeed. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A full account is what there'll be - you are, of course, welcome to invite informed participants. You are not, of course, welcome to decide who will edit what page, nor to raise further unsupported and arbitrary objections to valid content. Redheylin (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who removed it here, an I did so for the reasons I gave above: the source discussed the Battle of Chester in the context of post-Reformation polemics, rather than in the context of the study of early medieval Christianity in Britain, which is what this article is about. Rather, I didn't intend to remove it entirely, but rather relocate it to the Battle of Chester article where it is certainly relevant, but it was already there. I think further discussion of the post-Reformation interpretations of the battle be saved for that article unless/until it's decided that it is so crucial that it should be mentioned here in some form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think I have removed anything from either article. I have added various stuff to the Battle, some of which Redheylin removed, despite it being essential information for anyone trying to make sense of this nonsense, and I have consistently recommended further expansion there. Nor have I suggested "inviting" anyone anywhere. The shoe is firmly on the other foot. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, Johnbod, your arguments go around in circles. You say we should not discuss the matter here because there are others interested on another page: I suggest you invite them to participate here, and now you say "Nor have I suggested "inviting" anyone anywhere". You say no modern historian has discussed the matter, I mention that Higham has done so and has pointed out that the idea of Augustine's involvement may originate with Geoffrey, then you branch off into your personal ideas on whether Geoffrey himself should be included. You continue to insist that the contention that Augustine in any way procured the massacre is in some way an argument for "divine retribution". You confuse notability with reliability of sources with relevance with your personal views, and no amount of discussion elicits any progress or clarity. Now you are saying that I have said you have removed something-or-other - I have not. This prevarication is coming to the point where the only way to maintain a presumption of good faith is by assuming your intellectual incompetence. Please sharpen up and respond to comments rather than ignoring, misunderstanding or altering them. Redheylin (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Redheylin, It seems be be becoming apparent that you are a WP:TROLL. You have never coherently expressed what the suggestion or theory that you are so insistent in inserting here actually is; discussing it therefore requires a good deal of guesswork. I don't say no modern historian has discussed the matter at all: I say they have not done so in the context of an actual factual account of the battle, and also that no modern historian takes Augustine's "involvement" or "complicity" seriously. Put up (at the other place), or shut up. Or pursue the theory that Mossad were responsible for the Twin Towers. Being a good deal more recent, you have a better chance of finding straws of evidence to build that nest with. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, another prevarication.Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cu - you write; "the source discussed the Battle of Chester in the context of post-Reformation polemics, rather than in the context of the study of early medieval Christianity in Britain, which is what this article is about." There's no requirement that a reliable source be mainly or wholly concerned with the subject of the article. Is this not rather like saying that the article Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band ought not mention the Beatles, nor vice versa, and that a book on the Beatles is not a proper source for the article on the album? It is Bede who introduces the connection between the battle and the British bishops, the battle was clearly a major event in the history of the British church: any source that deals with any of these reliably is valid, surely? I refer you to my suggestion above re. splitting the article. Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod; I'd request you to consider the requirements of wiki editing and then to review my edits at this page, at Celtic rite, Celtic mass, Nennius, Taliesin, Book of Taliesin, Cad Goddeu, Preiddeu Annwfn, King Lot and other articles as regards early British literature and history, then at Hasan ibn Ali, Shaiva Siddhanta, Reincarnation, Kaula, Astral Plane, Myth of Er, Somnium Scipionis and others as regards comparative religion. When you have ascertained my ability to contribute to this subject, you may consider striking your last remark and, as previously requested, responding accurately to the points I have raised to refute your objections to the material I have added here, if you are able. At present I find these remarks exceptionable, discourteous and seemingly intended to disrupt Wikipedia editing and to secure a NNPOV by means of this. If you continue to offer such "arguments" it is going to lead to admin action. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see from the history that you are indeed top dog at Astral Plane. However here we are dealing with a matter of historical fact, or at least interpretations of historical fact. You may find that rather different standards apply, and misty suggestive flim-flam does not cut the mustard. If we need an admin, Cúchullain is at hand. If you want to add the mere fact of the Chester massacre by pagans here, I have no objection. Anything else needs to be set out at the Battle article in a way demonstrating clearly its relevance here, before it is added here in summarized form. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what - you get on with being a dog, top or bottom, mounting personal attacks, and trying to call the shots according to your own preferences: I'll get on with worthwhile edits. I strongly recommend you strike your comments above. Redheylin (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

Sad to see the discussion devolve into something less than productive lately and I regret to say I don't have any time to intervene. I just wanted to drop a note, easy as that is from the side-line, to say that Celtic and Roman traditions by Caitlin Corning would be a very useful book to consult for this article. Which is not to say of course that the current impasse is simply a problem of (lack of) sources. Cavila (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. What do you think about a new page specifically about Early British Christianity? Further up the page there are various notices by myself and others about the huge amount of unused material available - much of which, thankfully, is not as controversial as the various moments when Rome intervened (to universal veneration, of course) and defrocked various bishops. Redheylin (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Really lousy section

The section Liturgical and ritual practices contains nothing about liturgical and ritual practices. Instead it blarghs about "protestants vs catholics". Is this the result of some aggressive edit war? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just left over from the rewriting and rearranging the article has been experiencing. A section on liturgy and ritual would be particularly troublesome, as there is no evidence that there was ever a distinct liturgy that was practiced in all the Celtic areas at any given time, though the idea that there was has been propagated at various times. I'll take care of it next time I get a chance to do some work here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland

Hi there. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Celtic Christianity on whether the wording in the opening paragraph stating Britain and Ireland is correct in this context or whether British Isles is more appropriate. I ask you because I know that you folk will know more about this than most. Thanks. Jack 1314 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

JohnBod and Cuchullain have both commented, thanks, both of you. I'm trying to resolve the discussion, and I'm struggling. It would be extremely helpful if we could get more views over there. TFOWR 14:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the intro, let me know what you think. My current wording gets around the need to pick either "Ireland and Britain" or "British Isles". I think we would further benefit from a "definitions" section indicating exactly how the term has been used and how it is used today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective that seems like a very practical solution, Cuchullain. I'll see what the WT:BISE folk think. Many thanks for this, and for your help over at WT:BISE. TFOWR 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally a considerable improvement, although the one thing it obviously lacks is a geographical location, or any geographical links. One can't just hide from the issue. The period covered should also be more precisely given. If we are working on the lead, a summary of other parts of the article not yet covered should be added. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a novel solution and could be useful elsewhere. In effect we are talking about the period from the Roman evacuation of most of Britain to the Synod of Whitby with some pre and post material. One easy solution to the geography issue would be to create a map showing the distribution of celtic christianity and its main centres? --Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like censorship to me. In view of the lack of sources, and the changes over the time period, I don't think a map will help much on this issue, although it might be useful otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was an idea - although I can't find one in any of my books to work from. I'm happy for us to go back to Britain and Ireland which has stood for some time and is common --Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My current wording gets around the need to pick either "Ireland and Britain" or "British Isles". . This is quite deplorable. There should be no need to rewrite anything just to appease a minority view that a particular term is unacceptable. What precisely is theproblem with British Isles - is it incorect or inaccurate? If so, why? LevenBoy (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We will end up discussing the early medieval history of the Isle of Man, which even if the tradition claiming St Patrick was its first missionary is wrong, was clearly in the Celtic sphere. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And at least for a period we should include Brittany. In part the issue is that there isn't a consistently accurate geographical name or absolute agreement on the period in question. LevenBoy, just remember you are the one who decided to propose a change so the need to rewrite is driven by you. "Celtic speaking people of North West Europe" is one possibility which would include everything. --Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly include Brittany, but the Isle Man is to a large extent the difference between "Britain and Ireland" and the dreaded "British Isles". "Celtic speaking people of North West Europe" is a useful phrase that could be included, but you still need to say where they lived. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. I have a few comments to add. Firstly, as I said at the WT:BISE I just don't think that "British Isles" is the appropriate terminology to use here, for one reason. Essentially, "Celtic Christianity" refers to those practices and traditions that supposedly existed everywhere in the Celtic-speaking world - that is both Britain and Ireland (and their respective spheres of influence) - not just practices that existed somewhere in the British Isles. I added a few cites to Caitlyn Corning's excellent book on the subject, in which she defines "Celtic traditions" as those that are specifically found in both the Irish and (Brythonic) British churches, but were not used in the wider Christian church. I don't know that we really need to be geographically specific in the first sentence, considering that the concept itself is so vague. At any rate the first paragraph does now discuss the "Irish and British churches".

There have been a few comments on including Brittany, which would be logical. However, in reality Brittany receives fairly little attention in scholarly discussions of "Celtic Christianity". There is just not much evidence in general for Brittany during this period. As such we shouldn't bend over backwards to wrangle it in, though it might be helpful to mention that while Brittany was certainly a Celtic-speaking area, there's just not much that can be said about it with certainty.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, on the matter of dates, we really can't put too fine a line around it. There's just not a specific time when "Celtic Christianity" ended. The Synod of Whitby is frequently used in those insufferable new age books on the topic, but in reality all that happened there was that one kingdom (Northumbria) switched from the "Celtic" to the "Roman" dating for Easter and tonsure style. It was certainly not the last place where the dating was used.

What we can do are give the dates, where they are known, for when individual practices were abandoned in different areas. Thus we can say that the "Celtic" Easter dating was abandoned in southern Ireland in 630, and was abandoned in other areas over time, the last being north Wales in 768. In the case of penitentials, which have never disappeared, we can indicate when the practice spread to the wider Christian church. Of course all of this is irrelevant to the "British Isles" dispute.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We give some of the Easter dates, though as full a sequence as possible should be added, and should probably have more on the timing of the Benedictinization of monasteries - often much later - & organizing of bishops & dioceses on Roman lines, which were probably a good deal more significant than the Easter date, which is a really just a handy traceable symptom of CC rather than a significant aspect of it. At the moment we just say "Early Middle Ages" which runs to 1000 per our article, & we really need to be rather more specific. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of dates related to practice it would add considerably to the article. What is notable about Whitby is that it is the point at which Celtic Christianity ceased to spread, in a sense the point at which it became "celtic". As a result it became more significant with the benefits of hindsight, the celtic revival and yes all that terminally boring New Age stuff. I remember being in New Grange back in the 70s where Celtic Christianity was being linked with the Earth Mother and claiming credibility for Blake! My point about Brittany was not to suggest we knew much about it, but to point out another reason why BI is not an appropriate term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs)

I'll add a bit more on the dates, and do some rearranging. I'll also work on a "definition" section.

On Brittany, there is little if any evidence for the attested Celtic Christian traditions being used there. We can assume that Brittany followed British practice, at least for a while, but that's all it can be, assumption. As such Brittany doesn't get much treatment in scholarly discussions, so I don't think it has much bearing on the "British Isles" debate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New "definition" section

I have no problem with the text here, but most of it is about later conceptions of CC, many of which are over-dignified by calling them historiography. I'm not sure how to proceed - one might just retitle it "Definition and historiography" or "Definition and later interpretations". Ideally perhaps, the material would be expanded and split into two sections, with the one on later interpretations somewhat lower down, and picking up similar material elsewhere in the article. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think two sections might be the way to go. I wrote it the way I did because that's roughly how Corning, who I was using, discusses it. It's difficult to tease out what's historiography and what's misconception, since so much of earlier historiography was based on misconceptions. We at least need to get some of the misconceptions (specifically the idea of a "Celtic Church" and the opposition to Rome) out of the way up front before we proceed. At any rate I think a section on peoples' later beliefs about Celtic Christianity would be useful; I've seen a book or two that deals with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the latest stuff is an improvement. It's extremely vague, removing what little detail we had, and I'm far from sure these scholarly debates are over. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? If you mean this, it is certainly true that monasticism and heterodox baptism are given as examples of Celtic Christian practice, but as the sources say, there is no evidence they were outside of a particular sphere (that is, they weren't in use across the whole Celtic region). I didn't remove any other details that I can tell.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well on closer reexamination less has been removed than I thought, although you have removed the sentence relating to the end of the distinct phase. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to suggest dividing up the "distinctive traditions" section into two: one section for traditions that are known to have been used across the Celtic world, and another for things described as "Celtic" that don't actually appear to have been used outside of one region. In the former category would obviously be the Easter dating and the tonsure; Corning also identifies the penitentials and the "exile for Christ", which needs its own section. In the other category would be monastic structure, baptism, and I suppose the Rule of Columbanus, and anything else the sources add.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The troubles with this "lowest common denominator" approach are that: a) we have no article on "Early Irish Christianity" or anything similar, and b) there is so little useful evidence of what went on in other regions. If "Irish" (including Scottish/Northumbrian) material is removed as not being "common" enough, we will be left with next to nothing. I have no problems with distinctions being made, but until we have other articles we should include all "Celtic" traditions. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to remove anything that's here. We just need to distinguish between what was really "Celtic" [in the sense of being used everywhere] and what is only known to have occurred in particular regions. However, we do need to stick to things that people have actually described as "Celtic Christianity", not just anything that happened in the British Isles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Who" tag

This tag is misplaced. The statement is backed up directly in the source and in others in the article body. If you have a problem with the tag, please discuss it here rather than reverting the tag back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact quote from Corning, p. 18, says "Scholars, who point to the many similarities between the churches in the Celtic-speaking lands and their continental counterparts, have abandoned older theories that the Celts created a 'pure' church in opposition to the more authoritarian Rome." Another citation by Koch, p. 432, says "The view that at one time there existed a 'Celtic Church'... no longer has a place within scholarly discourse." We also quote Patrick Wormald as saying "One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed," and also quote Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, W. Davies, and Kathleen Hughes against the notion of an organized "Celtic Church" opposed to the Catholic Church. That tag is unwarranted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hughes 1977 or 2005?

Hi, as Hughes died in 1978, we should discuss how her contribution to the 2005 band "prehistory and early Ireland'" of the New History should be referenced. It was written in 1977 and the editors of the New History published it as it was in 2005 with an introduction note regarding the status of the text. Her esteemed colleague Ann Hamlin went through her original text for this publication and put in footnotes where research since 1977 changed the established view on early Irish church history significantly. This article here cites both Hughes original text and a footnote by Hamlin on significant new aspects. I tried to distinguish between Hughes and Hamlin, and I changed the year of Hughes text to 1977. But I'm a bit unsure about the last point, as it actually got published only in 2008. What do you think, should it be 1977 or 2005? --h-stt !? 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC) PS: 2008 was completely wrong.

Go with the date of publication. The 2005 text should imo be treated as a single unit - ie don't try to distinguish between the notes and the original. Nobody will be able to find the work in library catalogues under 1977 (unless it was published then, which you don't say). Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks like the 2008 date is my error: the correct date for the publication of A New History of Ireland is indeed 2005. I've corrected that. But yes, Jon's right, we need to go with the publication date, not with the date Hughes wrote the text. The article relies both on Hughes' article and the footnotes, which update the text in some very important ways.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still beleive that there need to be a note that her text was written in 1977 and published many years later, because her view is outdated in many ways by the publications by Sharpe (1984 and 1992) and particularly by Etchingham (1999, so far missing here). Such a note would be useful as well to reduce confusion by some readers who might know that Hughes died in 1978. --h-stt !? 10:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the standard way of citing works. The reader will find all the background material if they read the cited text, and at any rate our article already explains that Hughes' work has been superseded by later scholarship.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)