Talk:Celtic Christianity

"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. — LlywelynII 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. — LlywelynII 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"). — LlywelynII 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)