Talk:Diocese of Cashel and Ossory

It is requested that an image or photograph of Diocese of Cashel and Ossory be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Orphaned references in Diocese of Cashel and Ossory (CoI)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diocese of Cashel and Ossory (CoI)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HBOBC":

From Diocese of Clogher (Church of Ireland): Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (Third Edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 382–383. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Bishop of Waterford and Lismore: Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (Third Edition ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 376–377. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Diocese of Down and Dromore: Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 388–389. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Bishop of Ossory, Ferns and Leighlin: Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 404 and. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Bishop of Leighlin: Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 364, 400 and 437. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Bishop of Ossory: Fryde, E. B. (1986). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 369–370. ISBN 0-521-56350-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

propose the Removal of the NPOV banner

A NPOV banner has appeared in the article. No explanation or grounds have been given for the insertion of the banner. The particular section contains a list of historical facts. No historian of Irish history would doubt the veracity of the facts. If anything, the facts underplay the seriousness of the state actions. They amounted to state approved discrimination by reason of creed. Such actions would now be condemned by various sectins of the UN Charter of Huiman Rights. While such a chater was not in existance at the time, nevertheless, they entailed suffering to the majority of the population. Such suffering has been described in the most mild of terms. I should like to see what a more NPOV article would look like. I suspect that it would involve no more than an attempted whitewash by blinkered Protestant adherants. There are many members of otestant faiths who are also, unfortunately, deniers-of-suffering-by-the-majority-during-the-English-Reformation. Replacing one alleged non neutral POV with an actually biased POV does not restore neutrality. I propose the Removal of the NPOV banner. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the "Overview and history" section, which is repeated in the other current Church of Ireland diocese articles, goes on too much about how the "majority of the population remained faithful to the Latin Rite of Roman Catholicism" and "were obliged to find alternative premises and to conduct their services in secret". Yes, the Church of Ireland took control of the cathedrals, churches, etc., and the population majority were penalised by the then Government for not conforming, but does it have to be written from a biased Roman Catholic POV? In fact, does it have to be mentioned at all? It comes across to me as Catholics having a go at Protestants for what happened hundreds of years ago. Obviously who wrote that hasn't heard of Christian forgiveness. The section needs to be rewritten from an impartial, neutral point of view. Until then the tag should remain. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts in the overview are stated only once, they are not repeated elsewhere in the body of the article so I don't see how they could be characterised as "too much". To say that the Church of Ireland "took control" smacks of weasel words. It implies that they happended upon a grerenfield site with perfectly formed cathedrals, churches etc and no obvious owners in sight. Everybody knows that no such thing happened. The appropriation - for that is what it was - involved dispossession, exile, expulsion and penal punishments. All historians will acknowlege these facts. None of these gory details are mentioned in the article to protect the delicate sensibilites of the members of the Established Church. It suffices to simply state, in as neutral a way as possible, "were obliged to find alternative premises and to conduct their services in secret". Personally, I think that it is a masterpiece of understatement, but if others can find a better way of conveying facts in the the overview while lessening any embarrassment to members of the Established Church, then I'm all ears. As for Christian forgiveness, all Christians know that there are 3 steps in this process: an acknowedgement of sin on the part of the sinner, asking for forgiveness from the partty sinned against, a solemn commitment not to sin in that way (or any way) again. I'm not aware of the CoI undertaking any of these steps. And being possessed to this day of the fruits of their sinfulness, is it reasonable to expect such forgiveness? If I burgle my neighbour's house in the night, buy a diamond ring with the proceeds, can I then turn up tearful at my neighbours house begging for forgiveness while the brilliance of the diamond blinds my neighbour's eye? It's not the purpose of Wiki to arrange reconcilliations. It's sufficient to state the facts in as neutral away as possible while not allowing squeamishness to blind us to distasteful facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take offence when you said I used "weasel words". How else can I say that the Church of Ireland took over control of the cathedrals, churches, etc. during the Reformation? Let me know what wording should have said instead? I didn't realise that the talk page guidelines had to be so precise. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for intruding - the existing Irish bishops in the 1530s went along with Henry VIII's changes and were replaced in the usual way. Then in the 1550s they reverted to Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary. From the 1560s under Queen Elizabeth different bishops started to be appointed by each sect, but the state church (whether Protestant or Catholic) always had possession of the properties. It so happened that the state church remained Protestant, and that most Irish people did not subsequently convert to Protestantism, but in the 1530s-60s neither eventuality was predictable. Separately, all Henry's monastic land confiscations were accepted by Mary in 1554, and were not reversed by her. All the "dispossession, exile, expulsion and penal punishments" did happen, and were "distasteful", but happened after Henry, and particularly after "Regnans in Excelsis (1570). It is not just against NPOV but plain wrong to say that the Church of Ireland "took control" from the 1530s - state control was always there, and the church and monarchy were top-down institutions. Irish Jews and Moslems never had an opportunity to build at Cashel, did they?86.42.192.248 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording I said earlier "took control" has the same meaning as the editor's wording "assumed possession" in the article. We are both wrong. The state control was there before and after the Reformation, it was just the religious allegiance changed back and forth. The "Overview and history" section should be rewritten about the Church of Ireland diocese and is not neccessary to mention about "The substantial majority of the population remained faithful to the Latin Rite of Roman Catholicism"; just as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly article does not mention "The English-speaking minority mostly adhered to the Church of Ireland or to Presbyterianism". Rather than going on about the rights and wrongs during the Reformation, the "Overview and history" should be about how the current Diocese of Cashel and Ossory was evolved from the combination of other dioceses, how the Anglican Province of Cashel merged with the Anglican Province of Dublin in 1833, how the Irish Church Act 1869 disestablished the Church of Ireland in 1871; and how the united diocese is today. That is how the "Overview and history" should be about rather than zooming on one particular issue. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state had control of the Diocese before and after the Reformation? This will be news to the Bishop of Rome, who alone had the authority to invest the pallium on his chosen candidate. To state this strange opinion is Original Research which should either be withdrawn or supported. In this regard, the wiki article on Pallium is instructive. Note in particular:

The use of the pallium is reserved to the pope and archbishops who are metropolitans, but the latter may not use it until it is conferred upon them by the pope, normally at the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in June....Worn by the pope, the pallium symbolizes the plenitudo pontificalis officii (i.e., the "plenitude of pontifical office"); worn by archbishops, it typifies their participation in the supreme pastoral power of the pope, who concedes it to them for their proper church provinces.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the pope's authority to appoint bishops/archbishops and invest the pallium on his chosen candidate. But when a bishop/archbishop dies, translates or resigns the temporalities revert to the monarch who then grants them to the next bishop/archbishop. This show that the state had control of the secular properties and possessions not the church. Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diocese of Cashel and Ossory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220122136/http://www.cashel.anglican.org/information/diocese/cathedrals/cashel.html to http://www.cashel.anglican.org/information/diocese/cathedrals/cashel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diocese of Cashel and Ossory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]