|
I found the article highly dismissive, failing to reckon the fight for independence that preceded Celtic conformance with Rome.
I quite agree. This article would not need corrections, it would need to be rewritten altogether. As it is, it is very one-sided and plays down the differences that existed.
- Having contributed some of the material to this article in the past, I am puzzled over the allegations of "dismissive" & "one-sided". The Christians in Britain & Ireland thought of themselves as not only being orthodox but in harmony with the teachings of Rome. And it was they who learned that some of their traditions were not in harmony with the wider church, & made the efforts of bringing themselves into harmony: we learn from a letter from Cummian to Segene, abbot of Iona that a council in southern Ireland c.630 had adopted the Roman dating for Easter; then c.697 in northern Ireland; in 715 in Iona, & at last in 768 in Wales. There never was a formal schism between the believers in Celtic Christianity & Rome on the scale of, say, the Monophysites & Rome in the east. (Nor even between the northern Italian churches & Rome over the Three Chapter Controversy.) And the very gradualness of this adoption of Easter points to the fact that there was no Celtic Church but Celtic Churches.
- Of course, English partisans like Bede found it their advantage to emphasize the differences between the old Christians of western & the new Christians of eastern Britain, & thus indirectly argue that God had forsaken the westerners for their errors in faith.
- On the other hand, as time progressed & both the Welsh & Irish came under pressure of an united English kingdom, the independence of their bishops -- who identified themselves as Catholic through-&-through -- became more important & thereby a political issue. And as far as I know, only then was a clear separation expressed between Ireland (who came to embace Catholicism), Wales (who embraced various forms on Non-Conformity) & England (who officially embraced Anglicism).
- In any case, I agree that this article does need more work & material. -- llywrch 20:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No words about Pelagius
Pelagius, born in Britain, was one of the most original monk. Saint Augustin himself fought against his doctrine of salvation : the human will predominates againts the divine Mercy.
- Pélagianisme : Doctrine de Pélage (né en Grande-Bretagne vers 360, mort en Palestine vers 422) qui minimisait le rôle de la grâce divine par rapport à celui de la volonté humaine, et qui trouva en saint Augustin un adversaire redoutable.
More on the site : Pelagius and pelagianism (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pelagius.html)
I don't know enough to write about it, but it seems to have been important. Gwalarn 17:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Although the Vita of St. Germanus of Auxerre mentions he went to Britain to combat Pelagianism, by the time written records emerge of the Celtic Church, the beliefs of that sect had been long forgotten; neither Germanus nor St. Patrick express any knowledge of Pelagianism in their writings, & had he known about it, Gildas for one would have eagerly condemned his fellow men for this belief.
- Again on the other hand, some scholars (like J.N.L. Myres & John Morris) claim that Pelagius did have a direct effect on the British church; but I believe Charles Thomas, in his Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981 ISBN 0520043928) has thoroughly shown that these beliefs are incorrect, & based on projecting a modern POV upon an earlier age. -- llywrch 20:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|
