Talk:Church of Ireland

Catholics leaving Catholic Church for Church of Ireland

I removed the source supporting that statement, because the data did not support that conclusion. It had anecdotal evidence from selected parishes; it did not have data to back up the claim that the Church of Ireland was gaining on Roman Catholicism in Ireland, generally. mcornelius (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently people are re-adding unreliable sources to back up statements that may be true, but if you check the data from the 2002 and 2006 censuses, it seems statistically implausible. source for that statement is anecdotal, and while for someone in the Church of Ireland, may in absolute numbers seem significant to the Church of Ireland, the Church of Ireland grew by about 10,000 members between 2002 and 2006, so saying that this is a large shift is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornelius (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise that this is a sensitive subject. A "received truth" (but not an accurate one) is that converts from the Roman Catholic Church to Protestantism are "very rare" and the Anglican Communion does not publicise this much in any event. I doubt if numbers are kept by the Church of Ireland. But there have been at least three high profile converts: the present Deans of Christ Church (Dublin), Waterford and Ferns Cathedrals. Poshseagull (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More NPOV

I recently edited the page to remove the work 'apostacy' as reflecting a particular POV contrary to WP guidelines. It was quickly reinstated, with the comment "One man's 'changed adherance" is another man's "apostacised".' I agree with the comment, which is precisely why the word must be removed. The same editor helpfully wikilinked the word to its definition page, where it states: 'Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative. Many religious movements consider it a vice (sin).... Many religious groups and some states punish apostates.'

The context here is the historical failure of the protestant Church of Ireland to win converts among the Roman Catholic population, despite the political and economic advantages that could come from doing so. This is a historical fact, and can be stated as such, without using loaded POV language. See WP:NPOV.Finn Froding (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

all but two of the bishops of

Who were the bishops that signed up? Who were the two that did not? Where's the proof? What would have happened had a majority not signed up? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Two bishops, William Walsh of Meath and Thomas Leverous of Kildare, were deprived by Elizabeth for open resistance, according to the 1911 Enc. Brit. The others, while taking the oath of supremacy, were pretty much allowed to use the pre-Reformation rites and services until the accession of James. Several current articles speak of a kind of opportunistic flexibility among 16c. clerics who tried to reconcile demands of Queen and Pope while obeying neither. Under James, and Jesuit influence, this was no longer possible in the 17c. See "Controversy and Religious Identity in Sixteenth-Century Ireland: Three Encounters" http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-927444-4.pdf and Thomas G. Connors, "Surviving the Reformation in Ireland (1534-80): Christopher Bodkin, Archbishop of Tuam, and Roland Burke, Bishop of Clonfert, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 335-355. Finn Froding (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that Irish clerics did not vote against the proposed laws in the Irish parliament was because, thruogh their opposition, they were deprived of their votes? See "HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH From the Renaissance to the French Revolution", Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.J., 1914, VOLUME II, CHAPTER VIII.

"Before the arrival of Browne in Ireland careful steps were taken by the deputy and the Earl of Ormond to ensure that only trustworthy men should be elected as “knights of the shire,” while the lawyers were hard at work both in England and Ireland drafting the laws that Parliament was expected to ratify. The assembly opened on Monday, 1st May, at Dublin, was adjourned (31 May) to Kilkenny, then to Cashel (28 July), then to Limerick (2 Aug.), from which place it returned once more to Dublin. The next session opened in September (1536), and after several short sessions and long adjournments it was prorogued finally in December 1537. As far as can be seen no representatives attended this parliament except from the Pale and from the territories under the influence of the Earl of Ormond and his adherents. It was in no sense an Irish Parliament, as not a single Irish layman took part in it, nor could it be described accurately even as a Parliament of Leinster...... a royal commission, consisting of Anthony St. Leger, George Poulet, Thomas Moyle, and William Berners, was dispatched to Ireland (July 1537) to deliver the following acts to be passed by Parliament, namely, acts depriving the spiritual proctors of their right to vote, and against the power of the Bishop of Rome, together with acts giving to the king the tax of one-twentieth on benefices, enforcing the use of the English language and dress, and prohibiting alliances with the “wild Irish.” At the same time Henry wrote to the Deputy and council warning them to obey the instructions of the commissioners, and to the House of Lords ordering them to ratify the bills to be submitted, and telling them that if any member be unwilling to do so, “we shall look upon him with our princely eye as his ingratitude therein shall be little to his comfort.” When Parliament met again in October the spiritual proctors were deprived of their votes, and it was only then that the Act against the Bishop of Rome could be carried. The threats of royal vengeance seem to have produced the same effects in the Dublin assembly as in the English Parliament. Probably, as happened in England, those who could not agree with the measures were content to absent themselves during the discussions.5 The truth is, therefore, that Archbishop Cromer was supported in his attitude by the bishops and the representatives of the clergy, and that the acts against the jurisdiction of the Pope were carried against the wishes of the spirituality." Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference no. 1

What is its purpose? What is it verifying? It directs to a place names database from the first line. Should it be deleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)]

Do you mean the reference against "Church of Ireland (Irish: Eaglais na hÉireann)" in the first sentence? That came from this edit, and was presumably intended to justify the Church's name in Irish. However, that edit was over years two years ago and perhaps the page referenced has changed in the meantime - or can anyone else see where Eaglais na hÉireann is on that site? If it's not there any more, then hopefully someone can come up with another source.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of prominent members of the Church of Ireland

This used to be in the article but now seems to have been deleted. Does anyone know why? Poshseagull (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)