Talk:Celtic Christianity

"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)

NPOV

This entire article reads as it would if a Jesuit priest were to consider the idea that the distance from Rome and the British Isles fostered some degree of autonomy. Also, there are no modern "Scholars" cited, merely Patrick Wormald. He is one scholar, and his work is used liberally and as a complete refutation of all opposing views while treated as inherently accurate.

I am naturally skeptical that it is true, else other modern scholars would have come to a similar consensus and would be cited rather than one man and his opinion speaking for a multitude of silent "scholars." There has been an infinitely large amount of historical work done with regards to church history, especially church history in the British Isles. I find it baffling that only one scholar is cited and his findings and claims are trotted around in lieu of some other scholar's findings. This is what convinces me that this page is quite partisan and sympathetic in its tone. 156.12.202.122 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Many different scholars are cited: Kathleen Hughes, Caitlin Corning, John Koch, Richard Sharpe, and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín to name a few. Of the sixty-five citations, only five are to Wormald.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Be more specific please. Most modern scholars were, perhaps no longer are, anxious to distance themselves from the wilder claims of Presbyterian (etc) ministers from Scotland and Ireland, a danger that has perhaps now largely passed. Now it is the New Age fringe they have to worry about. You are of course welcome to make additions. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Literacy in Ireland

It is stated "Irish society had no history of literacy until the introduction of Christianity". While ireland did have an oral tradition at that time, the ogham alphabet existed and was in use prior to christainity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.170.48 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The View from Rome

This article expounds the view from Rome. Rome had fallen to Aleric and his Visigoths, and its religion and political and military power utterly diminished. In religious matters, for example, Rome was a secondary authority to Constantinople - the city of the Emperor Constantine where 'Roman' Christianity was established. When Augustine came to Britain he discovered a distinctive native church preserving and innovating a distinct native Christianity that, for example, used a form of Latin often considered more advanced and subtle than that used by the Romans of the time. That this native church was outmanoeuvered by political and commercial wiles speaks more of Rome's guile than its theological or intellectual supremacy. To state that 'scholars' have decided this or that in this article should be qualified by amending this to 'Roman Catholic scholars'.