Talk:Celtic Christianity/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.10.79 (talk) 09:35, 3 March 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)

While true, Ogam was used for memorial inscriptions, not entire books. Literacy as we know it came with Christianity, or at least contact with Rome. And that includes Ogam, which was inspired by - though obviously not derived from - Roman literacy. Fergananim (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Celtic" monasticism

A few paragraphs on monasticism have been added here over the last few days. It's all nicely cited, but I'm not sure this article is the place for it. In the period being discussed here, there were separate Irish and British (that is, the Britons) church and monastery traditions. The cited source, the de Paors' Early Christian Ireland: Ancient Peoples and Places, is clearly about the Irish system, which of course spread to what's now Scotland, some of the Ango-Saxon areas, and the continent. However, calling it "Celtic" in this context implies that these traits were found among both "Celtic" systems at the time, whereas it was not the case among the Britons.
I think the material may be better suited for a different article specifically on Irish monasticism. I'll see if I can find an appropriate place for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably better to distinguish by sections within this article. What is known for sure about the differences between British and Irish monasticism at this point is actually very little indeed, is it not? Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

By that token, the similarities are fairly little known as well. There's certainly no reason to assume that something that's true in the Irish church is necessarily true across the "Celtic" world, let alone that Irish and British forms of monasticism were more similar to each other than the rest of western Christianity. Specifically, I highly doubt that "permeable monasticism" was particularly common in Britain, even if it was in the Irish sphere. This material can and should be discussed somewhere, but I doubt this article is the place for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not exactly short of room here, and there's no other very obvious term that denotes Irish/Scottish/early Northumbrian monasticism, so even purely "Irish" material should be added here in a way that makes it clear what it refers to. At some future point it might need floating off in its own article. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire argument, and indeed the term 'Celtic', falls apart when we realise that neither the Irish nor the British used that term to describe ANY of their churches. Nor did they have any idea that they were themselves 'Celtic'. Its not a term used by any of the participants, and not put upon till very long after. Neither the British nor the Irish had the faintest idea they were 'Celts', probably because they were not. Fergananim (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Celtic" is is a problemmatic term, used by no-one at the time, but nonetheless the standard term in academia, as there are no real alternatives. See Talk:Celts etc. No "Gothic" architect called his work that either, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, it's a conventional term now and doesn't need to be avoided. It certainly shouldn't be removed when we're talking about later writers' perceptions of "Celts" or "Celtic Christianity" - even if they're inaccurate, they're referring to a perceived group and supposedly common features. I've restored several instances of the terms, especially when it follows what the sources use. I also restored some of the attributions to Corning, as removing them introduced some unnecessarily vague attribution and it wasn't clear why they were removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

On another note, work has continued on the monastic sections. It may be time to discuss branching them off into their own articles, there's obviously plenty of material for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that a fine idea, but defer to someone with more technical expertise. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help get such an article started. Perhaps we can wait till you've added everything you want here, and decide how to structure it from there. We could start an article on Christianity in early medieval Ireland in general, or one on monasticism specifically; there's clearly plenty material for either topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to start with early medieval Ireland, and see where it develops from there. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Britonia

It should be included some information of the old Celtic diocese of Britonia in Galicia (Spain). 86.125.63.90 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

Per my recent edits:

More sourcing for the legends of Lucius, Joseph of Arimathea, and Saint Fagan on their pages. More sourcing for early Celtic Christianity at list of Welsh saints, although it's largely sourced to Baring-Gould and could use more recent treatment if we've got it. They can be brought over if it's needful. — $Llywelyn II$ 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Gildas

Per Johnbod's recent edits:

I.
Possible≠probable, but remains a true statement. We don't want to give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories, I know. At the same time, for historic reasons, it's important to mention Bede & co's legends about Lucius and later legends about Joey A: people really did believe those legends for many centuries. For WP:LIE reasons, we have to make clear that those stories in their full development are undoubtably untrue (no 28 bishops, 3 archbishops, or united kingdom of Lucius) and may have been (Lucius) or probably were (Joey) entirely invented. Gildas is something different from that. He's very important as an early local source with access to (unlike Geoffrey, real) records that no longer exist. He says someone showed up by the end of the reign of Tiberius: we should mention it. There's no impossibility involved and we shouldn't remove it or pretend there is: there are specific NT statements of Christ sending out apostles during his lifetime (i.e., c. 30 – c. 33), there's a specific text (provided) saying by name that one of them was sent to Britain, and it doesn't take 4 years to walk there.

Now, that said, obviously the mission wasn't terribly successful. I thought that would be obvious from context: the first bishops aren't known for another 3 centuries. We can also add sourcing calling it highly unlikely or a confusion (Claudius's first name was 'Tiberius') and that's probably right. — $Llywelyn II$ 06:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

II.
Also, cf. WP:SOCALLED. Short version is don't use it. Not only is the Great Conspiracy known by that name, it is the primary topic for that name, which provides it without sneer quotes. If there are legitimate problems with the name raised by the scholarship, kindly provide it to both pages and possibly start a move request. Otherwise, realize it's just what that event is known as, similar to the Norman conquest of England (not the "Norman immigration to England around 1066") or the Crusades (not the "European invasions of Palestine during the Pre-modern period"). — $Llywelyn II$ 06:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't be bothered, even to tag it - keep the article full of unreferenced/primary source Romantic fantasy if you like. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celtic Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131103040938/http://www.spiritualitytoday.org:80/spir2day/853735woods.html to http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/853735woods.html#3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

SS Saints

I noticed a half dozen or so instances where, when discussing a Saint, or possibly two Saints at once, the Saints were noted as "SS X and Y", rather than "Saints X and Y" or, more properly, "Saint X and Saint Y". Obviously I eventually figured it out, and determined it was a form of shorthand considered appropriate in a particular field of research, but I do not think such shorthand is appropriate for a wiki article.

I consider myself to be rather broadly read (although not of wikis), yet have never encountered this before.

Thank you for your consideration. 173.77.169.30 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.169.30 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It is confusing. I've removed as many as I found, but please feel free to fix any others you may see.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is the normal abbreviation for, in particular, churches and feastdays with double dedications, and for churches in particular is not easily replaced (paying any respect to WP:COMMONNAME anyway). Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not very recognizable to readers who don't already know all that stuff intimately. It's easily enough replaced by changing "SS" to "Saints" or just saying "Saint X and Saint Y".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cuchullain that in general it is better to spell out saints. Some wiki articles on churches use SS (often with a redirect from Saints), others "saints" as the Italian Church of Saints Paul and Bartholomew. In this case is would be odd to translate "Santi" in "Chiesa dei Santi Paolo e Bartolomeo" as SS. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)