Talk:Church of Ireland

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"assuming possession"

When the English Parliament declared that the Holy See had no power over the Church in England, the Church in Ireland also conformed, assuming possession of most church property

This seems to me to be an uncomfortable merging of two inconsistent viewpoints. Either the "Church in Ireland" from before the Reformation is the current Church of Ireland, in which case it was already in possession of Church property, or the current Church of Ireland was created at the Reformation, in which case it couldn't have conformed at the time of the declaration (because it was created in conformance). Neither of these viewpoints by itself is NPOV.

I would fix it myself but I don't know enough about Irish history to be sure of phrasing it properly. Marnanel (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Clearly members of the CoI view it as a continuation of the Church founded by St Patrick, in which case it was already in possession of Church property. RC members view it differently. As only 4 out of 36 bishops accepted the oath of allegiance to the Crown, it could be said that they remained in possession of their sees and their property. The state, however, had the power to dispossess them, which it did. So from the RC viewpoint, the Church of Ireland was created at the Reformation and assumed possession of most church property. Which viewpoint is "correct"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Church in Ireland was independent of Rome prior to Henry's invasion in 1155; it didn't pay tithes to the Pope, and Adrian's right to claim it as a Papal fief has been disputed ever since (see Formation).
When it broke with Rome in 1536, the argument was it was simply being restored to the position prevailing prior to 1155, which is why the Church subsequently claimed to have the right of Apostolic succession.
I think the wording ins confusing, so I've changed it. Hopefully that will make sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen looking at the history of both Ireland and the Irish church, I can tell you that the Church Of Ireland became protestant in 1536 it split from the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. The Church of Ireland certainly did exist pre 1536 as a Roman Catholic Church and as an independent church before the 12th century (If we count the Church not paying tithes to Rome etc, but some people do claim that Ireland WAS Roman Catholic pre 12th century, but thats getting off track) Henry the 8th claimed control of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland in 1536 and reformed it as protestant, at this moment is the split between the current Church Of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland. Both churches can trace their origin back to St Patrick. Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are bishops elected?

The article states that the process for electing an Archbishop of Armagh is different from the process for electing other bishops, but gives no further detail (at least I couldn't find any). Mdrb55 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

This arcticle is confusing the institution of the Church of Ireland, established in 1536, with the church in Ireland. If Archbishop Usher's confessions comprise Calvinist elements, he seems to have been decidedly Protestant. " 'Occasional conformity' allowed the use of pre-Reformation rites," looks like underground Catholicism, in contrast.--Ulamm (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? The Banner talk 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow. What “church” in question? Christianity in Ireland? Occasional conformity, in my mind, does not strictly represent “crypto-Catholicism” via underground worship, but something that could be broadly interpreted as someone dropping aspects of conformity to suit their position in relation to who was breathing down their neck at the time. Conformity also varied in level - it is reasonable to say Henry VIII of England was not a Catholic after 1533/1536, but he continued to observe most pre-reformation liturgy etc. Even Elizabeth I had a rosary. SinoDevonian (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that the Anglican church is less protestant than other Protestant churches.
Nevertheless it is astonishing that it should have been important, within this church, to maintain pre-reformatory liturgy. "Private" search for pre-reformatory schemes rather looks like opposition against innovations in the church.
Last not least because of the present day problems between the various denominations and (perhaps much more) their followers in Ireland, this article should distinguish clearly, what was the policy of those, who wanted a new church, and what was the policy of those, who wanted to return to the pope's rule.--Ulamm (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again you come with sweeping statements but not with evidence. Do you really expect that both churches were entirely different straight after the split? Please remember that this was a government enforced split to suit the marriage plans of the king, not an ideological split. The Banner talk 21:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, far away in Kent, a church was built for gratefulness, when a return to Catholocism had been averted, because the young king had left his intention to marry a Spanish princess.--Ulamm (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, Kent was part of England. Not part of (the island of) Ireland. The Banner talk 20:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kent is in England, of course. But the story shows that a lot of people approved the Reformation as a kind of progress, and for a lot of people a return to Catholicism would have been a horror.

King Henry VIII as Founder of The Church of Ireland

The Church of Ireland's own website says it was founded by St Patrick in the 5th Century. To show the founder as King Henry VIII, actually contradicts their own website.

While Roman Catholics may espouse this, it is not what the Church of Ireland's official website indicates. The founder would be St. Patrick in the 5th Century if we allow them to speak for themselves. 2603:9001:2000:95D:E116:962C:9BB4:BF16 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We follow scholarship, not subjects' positions. And I don’t think there is much doubt that the CoE, CoI, etc., were founded by the English Crown. But please advance any known sources which hold otherwise… SeoR (talk)

Page disputes

Let’s discuss the two disputes here:

  • founder - why don’t we show both - St Patrick and Henry VIII ?
  • on the LGBTQ+-related topic, let’s discuss sources

thanks, SeoR (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Henry VIII did not legally, and never intended to found a new Church. The burden of proof for that claim lies with those who assert the break from Rome constitutes the creation of a new Church as such, rather than reforming the existing one (eg nobody claims Eastern Orthodox were ‘new’ churches, simply existing institutions whose communion with Rome became impaired). No new legal corporations were created, properties were not transferred, the same dioceses and structure remained in situ. The Church of Ireland can claim continuity of episcopal succession with pre-Reformation Church of Patrick, while the RCC had to re-introduce.
I look forward to other voices here, but to the best of my knowledge, scholarly opinion does not support the idea that the CoE, CoI and others were not in some sense new bodies, taken over by a national authority, out of the Latin structure. And the apostolic succession point is not so clear, with the substantial majority of bishops, and the overwhelming majority of the general clergy of all other ranks, not conforming to Henry's demands; the RCC claimed its own continuity. This is a delicate matter, and we should find a good wording to deal with this. SeoR (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think there is a good case for showing two founders, St Patrick as the notional lead for multiple Christian churches in Ireland (recalling that others reached out before him also), and Henry VIII. SeoR (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite the scholarly sources that conclude the Church of Ireland was a new body? Or the legal texts creating this new body? Besides polemicists like Duffy, whose work, while certainly scholarly, operates within theological priors, most historians would avoid making a value judgement on which Church is ‘true’ as such. LODU70 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might also say, before I leave it to other voices, if we are treating this as ‘delicate’ and in need of careful negotiation, the same should be applied to the Catholic Church in Ireland page which lists Patrick as its founder without qualification. LODU70 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who else would be listed? The Catholic Church was founded, and just went on, for better or worse. So there was just Saint Paddy. The Ch of England, and thus also the Ch of Ireland, were, as any textbook will show, “created” or “established” by the awful Henry. It is not even a debate or disputed. Of course based on a splitting off of St Patrick’s church but in a new foundation. Also, don’t overstate the Celtic Church’s independence. It did not pay Peter’s Pence and had its own local practices, as did operations in China and Mongolia once, or Syria, and as do the Eastern Churches now, but it did answer to the Pope. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just begging the question by assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the unaltered continuation of the pre-Reformation Church. The counter-Reformation was as radical a shift in dogma as the Reformation, and by the same standard must be seen to have created a new church as well. The Church of Ireland was certainly “established by law” under Henry, but ‘establish’ ≠ ‘create’, it means ‘make firm’, ‘give stability’. LODU70 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. To establish, in most understandings, is to found. That other meaning is secondary or archaic. And also no, no one ever claimed that the Counter-Reformation founded a new church. Come on. It was administrative reform, anti-corruption, and renewal of spirit. The count of people who think the Catholic Church does not go back to near the beginning would be very small indeed. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Sure, and the phrase ‘established by law’ is found in the archaic legal texts of the Tudor period. We can take the archaic understanding. As in, nobody was creating something new, but securing what already existed within the framework of the State.
2) Everyone accepts there was the Latin/Catholic Church before the Reformation. This Church came to be more and more dominated by the bishop of Rome/Pope; a development which was always challenged by some quarters as illegitimate (Eastern Orthodox, Investiture Controversy etc.). We know that the Church of Ireland maintained the same structures, legal corporations, offices etc. but also changed its teachings (rightly or wrongly). If introducing new teachings at the Reformation created a new church, then surely creating new teaching at the counter-Reformation created a new church. Like how Trent dogmatised Transubstantiation for the first time (Session 13, Canon 1). Before then, it was possible to be a Catholic and reject transubstantiation. Afterward, it was anathema. This is a new standard and definition of being Catholic, specifically tied to the novel dogmas of the Roman Church. Same structures, different teaching. If we apply the same standard, the RCC is as new as the Church of Ireland. LODU70 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that every dogma-determining or -altering Ecumenical Council created one or more new Churches? What version would that leave us on now? 80.233.50.45 (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m not contending that. Not least because Trent wasn’t a true ecumenical council. Secondly, I’m saying the single pre-Reformation Church was divided into two at the Reformation, both have the claim of continuity. But, if we apply the RC standard that says new teaching = new Church, as you do in the case of the Church of Ireland, then the RCC is a new Church too. LODU70 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn’t it more about governance and claims to property than dogma. That came more later, under E I. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Henry? Governance yes, property not really. LODU70 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But didn’t he grab property all over England and Ireland, turn out clergy and nuns, and give it to dodgy courtiers? The whole thing was about divorce, property and a little bit national interests. Not religion. 80.233.54.145 (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re referring to the dissolution of the monasteries? Yes, land was confiscated- cloistered nuns and monks were given state pensions to support their life afterwards. This dissolution was distinct from the Reformation; many monasteries had become sort of shell companies for wealthy families to hoard untaxable wealth. The break with the Papacy was separate- and had to do with Henry seeking an annulment (not divorce) of his marriage, because he felt God was punishing him for marrying his dead brother’s widow (forbidden in Scripture, permitted by the Pope). The Pope regularly granted these annulments to kings and princes, but refused Henry- many assume because at the time, the Pope was prisoner to Charles V (Catherine of Aaragon’s nephew). Henry saw how foreign rulers could weaponise the papacy to hurt him politically. He and others examined this theologically, and concluded the historic and scriptural practice was that secular rulers should be in charge of the Church in their realm (Erastianism). Besides this, Thomas Cranmer was an actual Protestant who pursued wider doctrinal reform. So the political and religious issues are very much intertwined. LODU70 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see a polite and substantive discussion. Let’s keep it focused on article improvement. I have asked for more input from the wider community. SeoR (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) On the question of same sex marriage. The sources currently referenced suggest there is an ongoing debate and division in the Church over sexuality. This is not the case. A supermajority of Church members live in the more conservative Northern Ireland. In the South, there have been some overtures to liberalise, but no great push. The most recent pastoral letter from the Bishops admits there is little appetite to discuss these issues any further at the parish level. They have reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on marriage consistently. They have said they cannot proscribe private blessings- but this is not the same as permitting them. https://www.ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/pdf/Synod/2018/HoB-StatementMay2018.PDF
As it stands, the article content is a litany of extraneous links and references to individual opinions and small pressure groups. This is an attempt to create the narrative of great division and debate in a small Church, which is actually quite homogenous in its indifference/opposition to changing its teaching on marriage and sexuality. LODU70 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this one, I agree that there is a good case for scaling down and toning down, indeed (but not taking it out altogether, as there was a long debate, even if, as you say, it has settled to a large extent). This should be debated here with others also, and a suitable wording agreed. SeoR (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see independent sources for this. The Banner talk 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources for which bit? What kind of sources would you accept? My claim is largely that this is a non-issue that’s never attracted grassroots activism from the average Church member. I can’t prove a negative. LODU70 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, independent sources. When it was such a big discussion, it should have been picked up by a newspaper, scholar or another non-church source. The Banner talk 17:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it was not a very big or divisive discussion. That the Church’s teaching’s didn’t change. It’s therefore your job to prove (by independent sources) that this was the case. LODU70 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me that there are some conflicting stories going around (not your fault, let me be clear) but what I found in a quick search were this article from the Irish Times and this article from the BBC. Maybe we can write a draft first? The Banner talk 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those two points I’m happy to concede:
“Two of the eleven bishops have stated they personally support same-sex civil marriage. One of those has said he also endorses same-sex marriage in the Church. The House of Bishops, as the official entity representing the Church, has only ever reaffirmed the current teaching on marriage and sexuality (most recently 2018 https://www.ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/pdf/Synod/2018/HoB-StatementMay2018.PDF ).”
“Changing Attitudes Ireland is an organisation which advocates for LGBT representation and same-sex marriage in the Church of Ireland. CAI is not affiliated with the Church of Ireland. Membership figures are not published.” LODU70 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Ireland"