mainoff.gif
lastdyoff.gif
lastwkoff.gif
treeoff.gif
searchoff.gif
helpoff.gif
contactoff.gif
creditsoff.gif
homeoff.gif


The Daltaí Boards » Archive: 2005- » 2006 (July-August) » Archive through August 04, 2006 » New manuscript found in bog « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sitric (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 02:03 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A new MS has been uncovered in the southmidlands of Ireland preserved in a bog. It was uncovered by a digger.

Anyone got more information?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ceolmhar
Member
Username: Ceolmhar

Post Number: 132
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 02:26 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Fragments of an ancient manuscript, possibly more than 1,000-years-old, have been uncovered in a bog in Ireland.

The discovery of the Psalter or Book of Psalms in the south midlands has already been hailed by experts as the greatest find from a European bog.

http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=75446&pt=n

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1081762006

Please correct me if you have the time }:-D

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 02:39 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Why would anyone throw away a new manuscript in a bog? Just Kidding (It's obvious what you meant).

Thanks for the information - I look forward to hearing more about it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cionaodh
Member
Username: Cionaodh

Post Number: 304
Registered: 05-2005


Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 03:18 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Tá áthas orm nach é mo leabhar beag dubh é sin ó thosach aimsire. Ní raibh ádh ar bith istigh ann.


http://www.gaeilge.org

FRC - Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 2
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 04:14 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Initial imprsesions place the composition date of the manuscript at about 800AD.

45 letters per line, 40 lines per page. Just reading it in the paper this morning. Absolutely fantastic. You can imagine how many more of these are lying around in bogs.

They believe invaders dumped it in the bog as they seen it as worthless, Damn Vikings!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Duine (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:39 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Well at least they did dump it in a bog which is great for preserving biological material. Anywhere else and it wouldn't have been preserved.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 09:04 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ye we were lucky i cant wait to see it. they say that it may not be on display for up to maybe 10 years which is rubbish, i know they have to clean it up and all that but im impatient so i should be allowed look at it.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

eiregirl (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 02:58 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Niall, a chara;
What are they thinking???...don't they know who you are??? LOL The rest of us might have to wait the time, but (after your private screening) you can tell us about it!! Hopefully, it won't take all of 10 years before it can be seen! What a great discovery! Anybody have a "best guess" as to what will be on it??

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 04:36 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Here's another link that shows some pictures and describe Psalm 83 being contained in the manuscript.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/irish-worker-finds-ancient-book-of/20060725 162309990024

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ceolmhar
Member
Username: Ceolmhar

Post Number: 134
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 04:44 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Yes. "The book was found open to a page describing, in Latin script, Psalm 83, in which God hears complaints of other nations' attempts to wipe out the name of Israel."

How odd.

Please correct me if you have the time }:-D

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 126
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 05:14 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I read about it in the paper this morning. Good thing the bloke who dug it up had the good sense to cover it in damp earth until the archaeologists arrived, otherwise it would have dried up and blown away in the wind overnight. That would have been a real shame, managing to stay intact for 1200 years and then the day it's rediscovered it gets destroyed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 127
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 05:29 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Maybe someone got mad at God and chucked it in. If the vikings thew stuff they thought was worthless in the bog, I wonder what else they chucked in along with the Psalm book?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eiregirl
Member
Username: Eiregirl

Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 05:56 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

How interesting! (And yes, how odd...not even considering anyone's take on the current drama in Israel and Lebanon...)
So lucky that the property owner knew what to do with the book. I'd have probably tried to dry it off and ruined the whole thing!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 9
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 04:25 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Same with me i probably wouldnt call the useum, but sell it to them at overly-priced but yet reasonable amount money.

Dia dhuit a eiregirl, nice to see you join, what you think??

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 53
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 06:04 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I always knew those bog-snorkellers were really archaeologists!! :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Norwegiandame
Member
Username: Norwegiandame

Post Number: 204
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 08:26 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

This is great!!! Guess who is going to the National Museum.

A bog is a very good place for conservation in itself and since there is so much of it in Ireland, one should expect to find more tidbits as time goes by.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3483
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 08:31 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

You won't see that manuscript for many years yet.

But the museum is a good idea.

If manuscripts are what you want, though, you really must go to Trinity College:

http://www.tcd.ie/info/trinity/bookofkells/

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Norwegiandame
Member
Username: Norwegiandame

Post Number: 205
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:00 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Been there, Aonghus. :-) Fantastic!
Made me drool!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 128
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A couple months ago they found a pair of ritually sacrificed people in a bog, from long before the days of this manuscript.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 58
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 12:51 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Odwyer, it'd be fascinating if they did DNA tests on the bodies. They found a peat man in England and tested local people, and found that they were related!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 132
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 01:12 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

How old was said peat man?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3495
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 03:41 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

The body was several thousand years old. The man was murdered (or executed) young!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 133
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 07:00 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Yeesh those townspeople have stayed on the same land and continued the bloodline for several thousand years?!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 134
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 07:01 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

If by executed you mean sacraficed, then probably. The celts were in the habit of throwing young people into bogs for good luck.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3497
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:08 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

"The book was found open to a page describing, in Latin script, Psalm 83, in which God hears complaints of other nations' attempts to wipe out the name of Israel."



There is an article in today's Irish times correcting this:

The Psalm in question was Psalm 83 as numbered by the Vulgate - which is Psalm 84 (I think) in the King James Version.

Different Psalm, no mention of destruction of Israel.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 65
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:19 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Aonghus, thank you for pointing this out. We have already had one poster implying that the find is a miracle expressing Gods opinion of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. **Rolling eyes**

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3498
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:05 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=21&c=83

beatus homo cuius fortitudo est in te semitae in corde eius transeuntes in valle fletus fontem ponent eam

And what people thought it was:

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=21&c=82

dixerunt venite et conteramus eos de gente et non sit memoria nominis Israhel ultra

(Psalm 82 in the Vulgate)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 136
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:20 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

So people thought it was a Protestant bible? 1000 years ago in Ireland? No Protestants there, I'm afraid.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3499
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:13 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Please don't open that can of worms, O Dwyer.

However, for those who are interested in this question:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/deutero.html

quote:

In about the 4th Century CE, as Greek began to die out of the Western Empire, there was a need for translation of the Christian Scriptures into Latin, the tongue of the common people of the West. The scholar Jerome undertook the task. Jerome used the best texts he could find (including Hebrew when available), and produced the so-called Vulgate bible. Jerome also counseled that the "deuterocanonical" Old Testament, that is, those books not available in Hebrew or not considered canonical by the Jews, were OK as models of faith and conduct, but should not be used to establish doctrine. [4]


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 141
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:20 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Sorry

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 16
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:29 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Just for the information, there were no protestants anywhere 1000 years ago, protestantism didnt exist

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 144
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:33 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

That's what I said, didn't I?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 66
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:44 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Aonghus doesn't want the can of worms opened, but just for the information of Niallmac, the Roman Catholic hierarchy did not exist in Ireland 1000 years ago. Current RC bishops i Ireland trace their "episcopal lines of succession", not to the Celtic Chuch, but to the Italian bishops. The episcopal descendants of the Celtic Church? Why the Church of Ireland of course.

And for the avoidance of doubt the Swedish and Finnish church kept the apostolic consecration of bishops, unlike other Lutherans!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 18
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:51 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Sorry ODwyer didnt mean to undermine you, Just thought you meant it was not in ireland, while i was saynig it didnt even exist. I understant now!

Karhu, I was not contesting the fact whether roman catholiscism was in ireland at that stage or not yet, was just talking about Protestantism, Lets leave this subject before we let the worms of the proverbial can

I was unaware of the dates of Roman Catholicisms entry into ireland, interesting!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3501
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 07:40 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

And inaccurate.

St Patrick was sent by the Pope, and was a bishop of what is now the Roman Catholic Church.

The so called "Celtic Church" never existed - the bishops in Ireland were always in communion with Rome as far as circumstances allowed.

But this is really not related to the Irish language, and is unlikely to remain polite, since it touches on a matter very close to the hearts of many of us.

If we must discuss it, then as gaeilge!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 68
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 08:42 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

No - you can say don't discuss things off-topic. You cannot say: you can only discuss them in Irish. What you wrote was historically inaccurate anyway. But if something is off-topic, it is off-topic in any language.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3504
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 09:06 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I was being tongue in cheek.

However, if we were trying to discuss it in Irish, I'm sure people would learn a lot of irish from the discussion.

As for historical accuracy; if you like, we can take this discussion offline, and I will give you my version of history, and happily listen to yours.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3506
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 09:54 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

And here, for Information is one of my sources:
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T201054/text002.html

quote:

For the rest, fathers, pray for us as we also do for you, wretched though we be, and refuse to consider us estranged from you; for we are all joint members of one body, whether Franks or Britons or Irish or whatever our race be. Thus let all our races rejoice in the comprehension of faith and the apprehension of the Son of God’’



(From Columbanus to the Pope)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 69
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:34 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I could post information - but it is off-topic - and no I don't really want to go off-line and talk about it. You cannot deny that at the Reformation the Bishops of the Irish hierarchy all opted to stay in the (now reformed) church, can you? As you said I don't think anyone really wants to see this discussed - but you have made sure to get your points in first, though.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Niallmac
Member
Username: Niallmac

Post Number: 27
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:46 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I'm not taking sides here in any way because i'm ignorant on this topic, but karhu could you post your source for my benefit because i am interested.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3507
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:52 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

quote:

You cannot deny that at the Reformation the Bishops of the Irish hierarchy all opted to stay in the (now reformed) church, can you?



Care to provide evidence for that? I do deny it!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:24 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I also think this is a very interesting subject and would like to learn more from both sides, and I hope (and pray ) that the discussion remains polite. Maybe we can slip in a few Irish words here and there to make the discussion eligible for continuation.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dearg
Member
Username: Dearg

Post Number: 174
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:42 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Perhaps it can be discussed in a new thread?

http://greann.com

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 71
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:55 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Part one of my answer:

An encyclopaedia available online (see http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/INV_JED/IRELAND_CHURCH_OF.html)has this to say:

quote:

The Reformation period begins with the passing of the Irish Supremacy Act 1537. As in England, the changes in religion of successive sovereigns alternately checked and promoted the progress of the movement, although in Ireland the mass of the people were less deeply affected by the religious controversies of the times than in Great Britain. At Mary's accession five bishops either abandoned, or were deprived of, their sees; but the Anglo-Irish who remained faithful to the Reformation were not subjected to persecution such as would have been their fate on the other side of the Channel. Again, under
Elizabeth, while two bishops (William Walsh of Meath and Thomas Leverous of Kildare) were deprived for open resistance to the new order of things, and while stern
measures were taken to suppress treasonable potting against the constitution, the uniform policy of the government in ecclesiastical matters was one of
toleration.

James I. caused the Supremacy Act to be rigorously enforced, but on political rather than on religious grounds. In distant parts of Ireland, indeed, the unreformed order of service was often used without interference from the secular authority, although the bishops had openly accepted the Act of Uniformity. The episcopal succession, then, was unbroken at the Reformation. The Marian prelates are admitted on all hands to have been the true bishops of the Church, and in every
case they were followed by a line of lawful successors, leading down to the present occupants of the several sees. The rival lines of Roman Catholic titulars are not in
direct succession to the Marian bishops, and cannot be regarded as continuous with the medieval Church.

The question of the continuity of the pre-Reformation Church with the Church of the Celtic period before the Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland is more difficult. Ten out of eleven archbishops of Armagh who held office between 1272 and 1439 were consecrated outside Ireland, and there is no evidence forthcoming that any one of them derived his apostolic succession through bishops of the Irish Church. It may be stated with confidence that the present Church of Ireland is the direct and legitimate successor of the Church of the 14th and 15th centuries, but it cannot so clearly be demonstrated that any existing organization is continuous with the Church of St Patrick.



[My comment ont the latter point: The records of the pre-mediaeval periods are patchy, and it cannot be proven that the mediaeval church of Ireland bishops had episocopal lines of succession going back to Pat. But the Catholic canon law insists that each bishop has to have 3 consecrators, so even if the Archbishops weree consecrated on the continent, they will not have independently consecrated any Irish bishops themselves, as they will have been accompanied by two other bishops. It cannot be proven that there are lines of succession back to the Celtic Church, but it cannot be proven that there are not. ]

It was not until the Counter-Reformation that the those faithful to the Vatican were ordered to leave the Anglican churches and worship separately. This happened in 1570 when a papal bull supposedly claimed to excommunicate Queen Elizabeth I and ordered CAtholics to try to assassinate her. Before talking about Ireland let me give background. I know more about the Church of England - where I know that every single bishop of the pre-Reformatnion church agreed to take the oath recognising Henry VIII as Head of the Church approx in 1538 (they had to - and the Vatican did not tell them to leave the church and form a separate hierarchy). 15 years later, the same Bishops were still there and delighted when Queen Mary I restored the link with the Vatican and brought back the Latin Mass, and began to persecute the more Protestant-leaning bishops. 5 years later, Elizabeth I came to the throne, and snapped the link with the VAtican again, brought back the English Mass and declared herself Supreme Governor (but not Head of the Church as her father had done, as the Bible says that Jesus is Head of the Church). Still no one left the Church of England. Finally a further 12 years on, in 1570, the Bishop of Rome began to fight back against Protestantism and after more than 30 years of worshipping in the Reformed Church of England, those loyal to the Bishop of Rome were ordered to leave the Church of England, and take the sacrament from a separate set of bishops and priests. As none of the bishops of the Church of England agreed to follow the Vatican line, a rival RC hierachy - existing illegally in the country - was set up by means of the Italian bishops - not the English bishops - consecrating a separate set of bishops for England. None of the bishops of the RC churhch of England and Wales can show episcopal lines of descent from the mediaeval English church. The RCs claim that the Church of England was a completely new church established in the 1530s, but structurally at least it was a continuation of the mediaeval English church, as all the bishops stayed in. Of course, the mediaeval English hierarchy does not trace itself back to the original Celtic bishops of England, because when in AD 597 Augustine of Canterbury arrived he insisted on consecrating new bishops or reconsecrating existing ones, so that the English bishops would have episcopal lines of succession stemming from the Continent. So the Church of England's bishops' lines of succession go back through the mediaeval church to St Augustine and thence to the Continent.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 72
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:55 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Part two of my answer.

Now, in Ireland the church was a little more independent-minded. Although the Englissh church accepted full Vatican control at the Synod of Whitby in AD662, the Celtic Church did not come under full Vatican control until the Synod of Cashel in the 12th century, and differences that had grown up between the Celtic Church and the Roman Church (re the date of Easter and the shape of the ecclesiastical tonsure and the wording of services) remained for centuries: and the Celtic Church did NOT have to submit to reordination from Rome, unlike the Church of England. Now, Pope St Celestine did send St Patrick to Ireland, but that was before the Church in England submitted to reordination by the Roman hierarchy, and so St Patrick was a bishop of the original Celtic hierarchy in the British Isles. A letter saying that Pope Celestine sent Patrick is not the same as saying that Pope Celestine personally consecrated St Patrick as a bishop. And I am not talking about whether the Celtic Church accepted the authority of the Pope - the Bishop of Rome had primacy of respect in the early Church, but the Celtic Church was nevertheless reluctant to change all of its practices over to the Roman form, so this authority only went so far - what I am talking about is episicopal lines of succession.

Now: where did the episcopal lines of succession of he Celtic church come from? In other words who consecrated the first bishops of the Celtic church? We don't know is the answer. Although I have read on some Eastern Orthodox sites that that it was some Greek bishops of the EAstern church that first arrived as missionaries and started off the Celtic church. Given the fact that the exact origins of the Celtic church were lost in time, and also the fact that he Celtic church lost contact with the rest of the church at certain periods, the Pope wanted to reconsecrate the lot, but it didn't happen. Now as you can see from the quotation above, the situation in between the time of St Patrick and the mediaeval church became murky. Probably, or possibly, the mediaeval Irish church had episcopal lines of succession going back to the Celtic church, but no proof exists.

Now, what happened during the reformation. Well for a start, the adherents of the Pope were not instructed to form a separate organisation until 1570, 30+ years after the Reformation in Ireland started. So there is no evidence that any of the pre-Reformation bishops left the Irish church and formed a separate hiearachy during hte days of Henry VIII and Edward VI. By 1553, Mary I was on the throne, and I think all RCs would have to say that the Marian bishops - who had sat out the Henry VIII and Edward VI period - were genuine. And as the article above says: none of the Marian bishops left the Church of Ireland to join a Vatican-sponsored rival hierarchy during the days of Elizabeth I. The Reformation was more half-hearted in Ireland - even after the Reformation many bishopss and priests carried on with the Latin mass. 5 of the more Protestant-leaning bishops were deprived of their sees under Mary I, but no wholescale persecuation was launched. 2 of the more Catholic-leaning bishops were then deprived of their sees under Elizabeth I, but there is no evidence that the RC hierarchy set up illegally in Ireland after 1570, when the Pope claimed to excommunicate the Queen, was consecrated by those 2, so the RC hierarchy in Ireland today was created in 1570 as an implant from the Italian church.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 73
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 02:56 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Under the RC Mary I, Roman Catholicism was re-established and in 1553 the Pope appted George Dowdall Archbishop of Armagh. Now he had been Anglican Abp of Armagh in 1543-52, and was not then recognised by the pope, but despite being the Anglican Abp he campaigned against the Protestanisation of the Church of Ireland under Edward VI (Henry VIII had insisted that he believed in Catholic doctrine, but just wanted to break with Rome; his son was more convinced in his Protestant beliefs), and in 1552 had left Ireland in protest at Protestantisation of the Church (and another Abp had been appted to replace him, Hugh Goodacre). So when Mary I came to the throne in 1553, George Dowdall was reappointed Abp of Armagh, and thus appears in both the RC and Anglican lists (in the Anglican list 1543-52 and 1553-63; in the RC list 1553-58). So the key point is that all sides accept that George Dowdall was the Primate of All Ireland during the reign of Mary I. Upon her death in 1558, Elizabeth I became Queen and the Church of Ireland became Protestant again - but George Dowdall did not retire and remained in his position until 1563. The Abp of Armagh recognised by the Vatican therefore remained in place. After him in 1563 Adam Loftus became Anglican Abp of Armagh. He was consecrated by the Abp of Dublin, Hugh Curwin, who became Abp of Dublin in 1555, during the reign of Mary I. So he too, the Abp of Dublin recognised by the Vatican during the reign of Mary I, did not leave the Church of Ireland when Elizabeth I came to the throne, and in fact he consecreated Adam Loftus as the next Anglican Abp of Armagh. And the Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01729a.htm says that the bishops of the Church of Ireland derive their lines of successionf rom Adam Loftus.

I have therefore proved that in 1558 when Elizabeth I came to the throne the Archbishops of both Armagh and Dublin stayed in the Church of Ireland. The Archbishops the Vatican later appointed were not part of the Marian hierarchy - because they stayed on, probably in order not to lose the money that went with being a bishop of the Established Church.

What happened from the poiint of view of the Vatican? In 1558 when George Dowdall decided to stay as Abp of Armagh and accept the Protestant settlement, well the Vatican declared the see vacant, and it was vacant from the point of view of the Vatican from 1558-60. After that the Vatican claimed to appoint Donagh O'Tighe Abp of Armagh from 1560-62 (consecrated **in Rome** according to http://www.fullbooks.com/History-of-the-Catholic-Church-from-the6.html), and then it was vacant again for 2 years from 1562 to 1564. Then the Vatican claimed to appoint Richard Creagh Abp of Armagh in 1564 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04469b.htm confirms he was consecrated **in Rome**, as I said, part of the Italian church). He was arrested by Elizabeth I and kept ini the Tower of London in 1567 until his death in 1585. Then the RC see of Armagh was vacant again in 1585-87. The Vatican appoitned Edmund MacGauran 1587-94 (I can't find out where and by whom he was consecrated), and then it was again vacant 1594-1601. Then it appointed Peter Lombard from 1601-25, who **lived out his life in Italy and didn't even visit his arbishopric in Armagh once, according to the same page of the Catholic encyclopedia**. The next RC Abp of Armagh, Hugh MacCawell, died in 1626 before he could reach his see; the RC encyclopedia says he was consecrated abroad too. Then it was vacant 1626-28. Then Hugh O'Reilly 1628-53 (I can't find out where and by whom he was consecrated). Then vacant during the Cromwellian period 1653-57. Then Edmund O'Reilly consecrated **in Brussels** (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11293c.htm) was RC Abp of Armach 1657-69. He was succeeded 1669-81 by Oliver Plunkett, since canonised, who was consecrated in Ghent by the Flemish bishops (by the Bp of Ghent, the Bp of Ferns and another according to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12169b.htm.) Who can doubt that the current RC hierarchy is structurally part of the Continental RC churches with no links to the mediaeval Irish church?

(Message edited by karhu on July 28, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pangur_dubh
Member
Username: Pangur_dubh

Post Number: 96
Registered: 03-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 03:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Leabhar an t-ábhar anseo. Ach, mar eolas daoibh, b'fhéidir nach bhfuil a fhios ag mórán daoine go bhfuil Leabhar na hUrnaí Coitinne (Book of Common Prayer) ar fáil as Gaeilge. Agus ceiliúrtar Seirbhísí Diaga na hEaglaise, an Naomh Eocairist san áireamh, trí mheán na Gaeilge. Comh maith le sin, tá ardmheas ag Eaglais na hÉireann ar an nGaeilge, rud a fheictear ach go h-áirithe i saol George Otto Simms & Henry McAdoo, dhá Ardeasbog BhAC ag deire an 20ú chêad.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3509
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 03:46 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

The reason that Roman Catholic Bishops were consecrated on the continent is quite simple.

There was a price on the head of any priest or bishop of the roman catholic church from the time of Elisabeth the I.

The Roman Catholic Church was persecuted in Ireland, and therefore the bishops had to be consecrated on the continent.

To argue from that to saying that the C of I, which has always been a minority church in Ireland, is the true representative of the Celtic Church is baffling.

http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/

There is, in the Roman Catholic viewpoint, no such thing as a national Church. There are the local churches, headed by a bishop who is independent, and answerable only in certain cases to the Pope as succesor of Peter.

And how do you explain that the vast majority of the people remained loyal to Rome through centuries of persecution?



quote:

tá ardmheas ag Eaglais na hÉireann ar an nGaeilge



Go deimhin, is fíor sin, agus ard mheas agamsa orthu dá bharr.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3510
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 03:57 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

It is difficult to square this
" the uniform policy of the government in ecclesiastical matters was one of toleration. "

with this:

http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/chron.html

" I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preheminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, preheminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this book.' "

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3511
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:07 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Karhu,

I think we are probably talking somewhat at cross purposes.

While the RC Church lay importance that individual bishops are in apostolic succession, the church is not organised on national lines as Lutheran Churches are.

What matters to me is continuity in faith and doctrine - and I believe the Celtic Church, despite differences in practice and externals, shared the Catholic Faith, and admitted the Primacy of Peter all through its history.

That was the point of my quote from Columbanus above.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 74
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:53 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Well, I am sure we are talking at cross purposes. Of course, I realise that from an RC point of view it does not really matter that the RC church was re-fertilised from abroad. From an RC point of you that is because all the bishops of the local church had become heretics. By the way, I am not denying that some of the VAtican-chosen primates were holy men. I read in my research today of one RC ABp of Armagh who was so poor, and they didn't have churches in those days because all the physical infrastructure had been kept by the CofI, so he wandered around the countryside giving open air masses.

but to say that the Primacy of Peter has always been admitted is a long stretch. Surely you have enough sense of history to realise that the claims of the Papacy were firmed up as history progressed? Even your reading of the Bible can show you that St James was leader of the early church during the time of the Acts of the Apostles. Aonghus, you claim to oppose the English invasion and its eventual impact on the Irish language, but surely you know that it was because the Celtic Church resisted the Papacy and its attempts to rein it in that the Pope "authorised" England to invade Ireland in 1169? Very quickly the Irish church was brought into line, and as the quote I gave above showed, Abps were appointed from the continent, reflecting Anglo-Norman domination of Ireland. I read today too that during hte mediaeval period when the Abps of Armagh were chosen from the continent, many of the Abps did not actually dare go near Armagh, as it lay beyond the Pale controlled by England. So they used to stay in a holiday home in Louth just inside the Pale. The Irish church did not admit the primacy of Peter - and so it was crushed with Anglo-Norman arms, courtesy of the Holy Father!

I expect it is true that the RC church ini matters of faith corresponds more closely to the pre-Reformation church, eg I suppose Marian devotion to have existed in the preReformation period. But the RC church is a reformed church too. It has largely internalised the criticisms of the Reformation and made internal changes to reflect that. I do not know about Ireland, but I know that in England in the pre Reformaiton period the laity were only allowed communion on Easter Sunday. At other times their act of adoration was to see the host raised by the priest - but only the priest ate it. One of the demands of the Reformation was to make communion more regular for the laity - and yet today daily communion is thought to be a peculiarly RC practice, quite in contradictioni to the preReformation practices. Now I would like to know if the same situation prevailed in Hibernia?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 148
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:04 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Ack this thead is about THE FINDING OF A BOOK IN A BOG not the Catholic/Protestant conflict! Keep it up and this board is gonna get deleted.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3512
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:18 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

You are putting the cart before the horse, Karhu.

The reforms of the Church happened before the Norman Invasion, spearheaded by Saint Malachy, an Irish Archbishop of Armagh.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09565a.htm

There were two Synods of Cashel, one before and one after the Norman Invasion.

And I think if you examine the claims about the Archbishop of Armagh not leaving the Pale, you will find it was not the RC Archbishop who was afraid to leave.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/diocese.htm

Henry II used the excuse of disorder in the Church to get a bull to invade Ireland - but that was only justified because the Irish Princes submitted overlordship to the Pope in Rome some time before that (I'll find the date later).

And the invasion only happened because Diarmaid na nGall, king of leinster, asked for support.

Not the first time, and probably not the last, that religion was instrumentalised in the service of politics.

As far Peter and Scripture:
Matthew 16:18



As for the Church reforming itself - that will always be necessary. But the doctrine has not changed.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Canuck
Member
Username: Canuck

Post Number: 51
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:19 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Is it fair to say that the conditions imposed on the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland at that time are similar to the conditions China is imposing on the Church today?

Anyways, I don't know much about this stuff except that it is quite common for Protestants to get quite defensive once the history of the Church is discussed. Insofar that history is muddled and conveniently revised.

Anyways, I have to say that this topic can get REALLY divisive and has the potential to explode. I think it would be better suited for a religious forum elsewhere since it has NOTHING to do with the Irish language whether or not we discuss i nGaeilge.

(Message edited by Canuck on July 28, 2006)

(Message edited by Canuck on July 28, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 149
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:21 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Once again: This thead is about THE FINDING OF A BOOK IN A BOG not the Catholic/Protestant conflict! Keep it up and this board is gonna get deleted.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3514
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 05:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Relax, O Dwyer.

Karhu and myself are having a civilised discussion about history from which we are both learning.

Because it is Irish history, it has a certain bearing on the language.

However, Karhu, perhaps we should agree to differ?

I'll leave the last word with you (if I can keep my mouth shut ).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

An Pápaire Dílis (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:25 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Quote:
I have therefore proved that in 1558 when Elizabeth I came to the throne the Archbishops of both Armagh and Dublin stayed in the Church of Ireland. The Archbishops the Vatican later appointed were not part of the Marian hierarchy - because they stayed on, probably in order not to lose the money that went with being a bishop of the Established Church.

You have proven nothing of the sort! Two bishops are known to have taken the oath of supremacy to Elizabeth in 1560, namely Curwen of Dublin and Bodkin of Tuam. Two others were deprived of their sees by government for refusing to take the oath, namely Walsh of Meath and Leverous of Kildare. As for Dowdall, archbishop of Armagh ...



Quote:
In 1558 when George Dowdall decided to stay as Abp of Armagh and accept the Protestant settlement, well the Vatican declared the see vacant, and it was vacant from the point of view of the Vatican from 1558-60.

Archbishop Dowdall died on 17 August 1588 and the legislation relating to the Elizabethan reformation wasn't enacted until the parliament of 1560. The Vatican regarded the see of Armagh as being vacant, not because the archbishop had taken the oath of supremacy, but because he was dead! On his death, administration of the Armagh archdiocese passed to the (Catholic) dean of Armagh, Terence Donnelly, as is usual during an episcopal vacancy. We cannot be certain what Dowdall would have done had he survived a few years longer: on the one hand, he had accepted Henry VIII's break with Rome, but on the other hand he later went over to Rome when Edward VI began to implement more Protestant policies. It's safe to say that he wasn't a strong believer in Papal supremacy, but it's also clear that he wasn't a Protestant. Given that the Elizabethan church was considerably closer in doctrine to that of Edward VI than to that of Henry VIII, it seems likely that Dowdall would have refused the oath had he been forced to take it.



But even if Dowdall had lived until 1560, it is unlikely that he would have forced to take a position on the oath of supremacy because most of his diocese, including the ecclesiastical capital of Armagh, was located outside the area controlled by the English government. That was true of most Irish bishops at the time. They could safely ignore the oath because they were out of the reach of government, but it would have been tempting fate for them to have denounced the queen as a heretic. The prudent course for a bishop in the Ireland of the 1560s was to keep one's head down and send a letter once a year to Dublin Castle and another to the Vatican expressing the hope that the Queen/Pope was in good health. In most cases, it was only when the bishops who were in office in 1560 died and rival successors were appointed by government and by Rome that it becomes possible to clearly identify bishops as "Protestant" or "Catholic".



The Pale was the one area in the country where a policy of ambiguity was impossible in the 1560s, and it is suggestive (at the very least) that, of the bishops who lived in the area where the Queen's authority could be effectively enforced, and who therefore could not avoid making a decision about the oath, two out of three refused to take it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

An Pápaire Dilis (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:30 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I notice a typo in my earlier message. It should read: "Archbishop Dowdall died on 17 August 1558".

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Eiregirl
Member
Username: Eiregirl

Post Number: 2
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 07:25 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

A Karhu, a chara;
Pardon my timing...just checking this thread once a day obviously isn't sufficient.

Hate to go back so far on this thread to discuss the original "peat man" discovery, but, you seemed to find fault with a light-hearted comment I made.

I didn't (in any way) imply that the find in the bog "was a miracle expressing God's opinion about Israel and Lebanon". Frankly, that thought never occurred to me. *Nor would I give it much credence! The previous poster just said "how odd" in reference to the page, we were informed, that the book was found open to. I "just" agreed and continued the "how odd" comment referencing the current week's news. No thought or reference to any "miracles" was made or implied. Nor was it any kind of political comment, as I wouldn't "go there" and understood this forum to discourage any political comhras.
Of course, I didn't think it was OK to ridicule other posters either, but, that appears to be debatable.

Not to make a big deal about what was intended to be a light comment, but, if I think someone said something stupid (even if I misunderstood them), I just wouldn't comment.

Slán,
Sarah

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 150
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 09:05 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

And that wasn't even the psalm the Bible was open to.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mac Léinn na Gaeilge (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 09:41 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I think the beautiful thing about this thread is so many people have jumped into this thread and made it so enjoyable to read. Yes, O'Dwyer, your point is well taken that this thread was orignally started regarding a book found in a bog, but because of what I think is a humorous turn of events due to journalistic issues, we've evolved into a religious discussion. This religious discussion is a joy to read. Why? Because of the ability of Karhu and Aonghus to conduct their arguments in the utmost of civility. I admire them for that. I also admire the other contributors, like Eiregirl, who continue to add to the discussion in such a positive way.

But, again a O'Dwyer, as you probably feel and as Dearg already indicated, perhaps this thread should evolve on its own.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 75
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:30 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Aonghus is right. As far as we are concerned it was an exchange of information. And I learned something too. I did not know that following the Norman invasion they appointed bishops from the continent to the point that there is no clear connection between the pre-invasion church and the post-invasion church! Hmm!! And Aonghus is also right that Malachy Bp of Armagh began the process of accepting Rome before 1169. But I think he is mistaken when he says both synods were at Cashel. The one at Cashel was 1172, but the one before the invasion was 1152 at Kells. So there really was no reason for the Pope to ask Henry II to invade "to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people" (quote from that Pope) **apart from the fact that the pope, Adrian IV, was English** ;-)

An Pápaire Dílis, you say George Dowdall died in 1558 and so did not submit to Elizabeth I, and the Catholic Encyclopedia gives that year too. But he is listed on Wikipedia at the Anglican Abp of Armagh until 1563. So I don't know when he died. So maybe you are right. Anyway, the existing RC hierarchy in Ireland does not trace its apostolic succession back to him, which is my point. Some bishops may have dodged the actual oath, without actually leaving the church under Elizabeth. The Established Church had the right to tithes, you see, and, just as today, money was important! Either way, the thrust of my argument is right, that the Vatican appointed, very intermittently, with many vacancies, a series of Archbishops generally consecrated in Rome - by Italian bishops - and not always actually able to visit Ireland owing to the political situation.

Basically there are various periods of the Church in Ireland:

400s - 1152/72: independent Celtic church
1152/72 - 1537: Roman Catholicism
1537-53: Anglicanism
1553-58: Roman Catholicism
1558-1871: Anglicanism with underground RC church which was unable to act openly really until the late 18th century
1871-now: no official church, but basically an RC country

There is a whole debate on Celtic Christianity - see the Wikipedia article.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Óráid_thoirní
Member
Username: Óráid_thoirní

Post Number: 27
Registered: 07-2006


Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:48 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

I noticed the comments about the peat man found in England above. You might be interested to know that they found a skull in England from 9000 years ago (a man known as "Cheddar Man"). They did a mitochondrial DNA analysis and compared it with the local population. They discovered at least 3 people who were directly related with exact matches. It's quite amazing since the English royalty can only trace back to the ninth century AD.

I know I know DJWebb you were right (re Ivernic language).

And to link the two threads.. how possibly could anyone say with a straight face that the Queen has all the authority blah blah blah in all things spiritual?

FRC - Fáilte Roimh Cheartúcháin

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karhu
Member
Username: Karhu

Post Number: 77
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 01:24 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

English royalty opens another can of worms - and I am not going to move the thread on to that subject.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aonghus
Member
Username: Aonghus

Post Number: 3517
Registered: 08-2004


Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 06:49 am:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

Karhu,

the Synod I referred to was Rath Breasail (which is near Cashel) in 1118.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

An Pápaire Dílis (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 05:15 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

An Pápaire Dílis, you say George Dowdall died in 1558 and so did not submit to Elizabeth I, and the Catholic Encyclopedia gives that year too. But he is listed on Wikipedia at the Anglican Abp of Armagh until 1563. So I don't know when he died. So maybe you are right.


It's a tough call isn't it? A notorious source like the Catholic Encyclopedia on the one hand, and a highly reputable (not to say infallible) source of information like Wikipedia on the other. It's no wonder you're confused.*



Anyway, the existing RC hierarchy in Ireland does not trace its apostolic succession back to him, which is my point.


I fail to understand why that is of any significance. Why should one partcular 16th century prelate be of any particular importance? Even if he didn't consecrate any of the Irish bishops who survived him (and I've no idea whether he did or not), why would that have any implications for us today?



Some bishops may have dodged the actual oath, without actually leaving the church under Elizabeth. The Established Church had the right to tithes, you see, and, just as today, money was important!


You seem to be unable to grasp the enormous gulf that existed between English legal theory and the reality on the ground in 16th-century Ireland. In theory, Elizabeth I was Queen of the Kingdom of Ireland and Supreme Governor of the Church of Ireland. In reality, she was queen of counties Dublin, Meath, Louth and Kildare; Leix and Offaly had recently been conquered, and the crown held a few of the larger provincial towns (Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway). That was it. The rest of the country was a patchwork of independent lordships owing either nominal feudal allegiance to the queen (in the case of the Old English lordships) or none at all (in the case of the Irish lordships). The situation in the religious sphere reflected that in the secular sphere. The "established church" had as much basis in reality as the "kingdom of Ireland". Each bishop was lord of his own diocese. There was no national church either to remain in or to leave. Tithes were collected locally in each diocese and the Dublin government had no involvement in the business for the great part of the country that remained outside its control. What I have said about the autonomous nature of the local churches on the accession of Elizabeth I, was equally (or perhaps even more) true during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Their Reformations too were largely confined to the English Pale.



The reality is that the new Protestant church only gradually secured possession of the lands etc. of the pre-Reformation church during the forty years of Elizabeth's reign as the English conquest progressed. The process was not completed until the reign of James I in the early seventeenth century when all of Ireland came under effective English rule for the first time in the aftermath of the battle of Kinsale.



Either way, the thrust of my argument is right, that the Vatican appointed, very intermittently, with many vacancies, a series of Archbishops generally consecrated in Rome - by Italian bishops - and not always actually able to visit Ireland owing to the political situation.


I don't think anyone would dispute that the Catholic church is run from Rome. I certainly wouldn't. I suspect that may be why it's often called the Roman Catholic church. What I do dispute is the suggestion that the bulk (or even a large part) of the Catholic clergy under Mary I moved over to the Protestant church under Elizabeth I. In reality, the new church was crippled by chronic manpower shortages. The solution adopted - the importation of clergy from England - effectively sealed the fate of the Reformation in a country that was still overwhelmingly Irish speaking.



* My source for the date of the archbishop's death is R. Dudley Edwards, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, London, 1977, page 106. Unfortunately, the late Professor Edwards was a Catholic so perhaps we should prefer Wikipedia.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Odwyer
Member
Username: Odwyer

Post Number: 151
Registered: 05-2006


Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 07:59 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

We must keep in mind - If you were an Irish Bishop and you became a Protestant, that would be like betraying your own people and others would certaintly see it that way as well. You would have a hard time trying to preach the gospel to a bunch of Irishmen who think you should be burned as a heretic.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MAC AN ULTAIGH (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From:
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 01:11 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

on the topic of henrys invasion of Ireland it was actually reported today (The star 31/07/06) that the document from the pope to henry was edited to suit himself. the claim comes from top british professor Anne Duggan.

(Message edited by admin on July 31, 2006)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caoimhín
Board Administrator
Username: Caoimhín

Post Number: 201
Registered: 01-1999


Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 01:27 pm:   Small TextLarge TextEdit Post Print Post

This thread has drifted off topic and will be closed.

Caoimhin

Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam.



©Daltaí na Gaeilge