Jump to content

Talk:Synod of Cashel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synod of Cashel

[edit]

A synod only meets to discuss the affairs of the Church. It dfoes not meet to discuss affairs of state. The Synod of Cashel met to sort out cettain abuses in the Church in Ireland. None of it's acts refers to the King of England. None of it's acts refers to the overlordship of Ireland by the English King.


The claims about the Bull of Pope Adrian is itself disputed. What is not disputed howver, is that it was not read at the Synod of Cashel. If it was read at all (on the assumption that the Bull was not an English fabrication), it was allegedly read at the so-called Synod of Waterford. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide the sources to support you contention and then add the text to the article. --Domer48'fenian' 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support added as requested. ALL the Acts of the Synod are supplied. None supports the disputed claims. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably have read this first before posting below... Anyway, here's what Holland (cited below) says about what was decided in addition to the seven acts:

It was also decided that in Ireland, all matters relating to religion were to follow the observances of the English church. Some have interpreted this as referring to liturgical practices only; others see it as encompassing more, and therefore being much more fundamental,

especially since it is claimed that the Irish bishops swore fealty to Henry at around this time. Given the absence of Irish sources it is difficult to be sure what the position of the Irish bishops was, either collectively or individually, although we know that they had communicated concerns about the state of the Irish church to Pope Alexander III. But from Henry’s point of view, the synod was a diplomatic success. He was able, through Archdeacon Ralph, to report to the pope on the assistance he had received from the bishops and to have, in return, papal instructions issued to the Irish bishops and kings, instructing them to support his rule

in Ireland.

If anyone is interested in making use of it, I can provide a copy of Hollands article. Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged allegations

[edit]

Errr... What's this? The whole paragraph "Acts wrongly attributed to the Synod" seems to be an answer to "allegations" made by someone (who?), and why are discussing these allegations relevant here? Seems like most of this has to do with Laudabiliter, and AFAIK Gerald never related that to the Synod of Cashel. Is this somehow related to McCormicks Newly-Discovered Historical Facts from 1889??

I was planning to add some info from Holland, Martin (2005). "CASHEL, SYNOD OF II (1172)". in Seán Duffy. Medieval Ireland. An Encyclopedia. Abingdon and New York. pp. 66-67., but it would be useful to know how that paragraph with those supposedly alleged allegations to debatable forgery relates to this before doing so. Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the section as irrelevant. The Waterford Synod needs its own article. By 1172 the Irish kings had sworn fealty to Henry and IMO the Irish bishops assembling at Cashel on his orders, and going along 100% with his agenda, does suggest that they felt some fealty towards him as well. "Gelasius, the Primate of Ireland, refused to attend."; either he was ill, or most likely he was worried that the primacy of Armagh would be downgraded and he would lose status (see Primacy of Ireland).86.46.244.48 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section should be removed if it is incorrect. Other editors above are still working on this. It should not be removed because it is irrelevant. It is clearly relevant as upon it rests the claim of the King of England to the Lordship of Ireland. This is not a trifling matter. If Cashel is a misrepresentation and Waterofrd depends on Cashel, then it too is a misrepresentation. They are definitely linked. The paragraphs should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing this as irrelevant - unless someone can come up with some relevant sources that these acts have been attributed (wrongly) to the Cashel Synod. I haven't seen anywhere that the King of England based his claim for the Lordship of Ireland on the Synod of Cashel... Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Read the Laudabiliter article for pleny of support that both synods were misrepresented by Geraldus and other PR agents of the Crown. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the connection between Laudabiliter and the synod of Cashel? That the letter from the pope wasn't mentioned?? That someone during the 19th Century authenticity debate used that it wasn't mentioned as an "proof" that it couldn't have existed??? Sorry, I just don't get it. I suggest you rewrite that paragraph with relevant sources to actual misrepresentations, and state explicitly which acts who had wrongly attributed to Cashel II. If there is a long historiographical tradition of attributing other acts than those known (through Gerald, our only source for this), that would be relevant. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof. The bishops were ordered by Henry to assemble and agree to laws bringing Irish church practices into line with the rest of western Europe, and they complied. Whether Laudabiliter was drafted in 1155 or 1185 is irrelevant; everyone was doing as Henry wished, and Rome approved. Henry had done penance for Thomas Becket by 1172, and there was no reason for Rome to disagree with anything that had happened in Ireland in 1169-72. Probably Giraldus did a PR job later, but so what?86.46.217.182 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested

[edit]

The entire section above would be unnecessary if a single line was erased from the article "It has been suggested that the seventh act of the Synod called upon the clergy and people of Ireland to acknowledge Henry II of England as their king." This line along makes it necessary to get into an argument that the suggestion may be false. Remove the line and the need for contentious refutation is also removed. To re-direct what was written above, "If there is a long historiographical tradition of attributing other acts than those written in the 7 acts, that would be relevant.". And if that is so, then bring along the citations. Encyclopediatic articles should not be polluted with "It has been suggested....". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it, apologies for being dense ;) I added {{cn}} and {{by whom}}. I notice that this has been done previously as well to no avail though [1]. I will try to dig up some sources and rewrite that part, agree totally that WP:WEASEL must be avoided. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Finnrind for the scholarly additions to the article. Special thanks for expunging the weasel words. Altogether more balanced now and reflecting the true character of what probably occured. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest an avenue of useful investigation? Isn't it curious that none of the annals of Ireland mentions the Synod? They are normally so particular about such things. To omit the detail altogether leads one to ask whether the Synod occured at all, or whether it was in fact some "spin" put out by Giraldus - the Lord Mandelson of his day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see anyone actually questioning that the synod took place. Gerald had his own agenda of promoting his relatives the "geraldines", as well as a strong and rather snobbish anti-Irish (and anti-Welsh) bias, but he would surely not have invented something like this. Considering that several of the participants at the synod was still alive when Gerald published his account (like Cadla Ua Dubthaig), there is also little reason to doubt that the decrees he stated he gave "verbatim as published" was just that. What should be (and have been) doubted is the way he describes the background and motivation, it was probably not just religious zeal that made Henry call for this meeting. I will add some more about the traditional interpretation of the synod, based on Warren and Flanagan - it seems both the tradition from Gerald (the English conqueror) and the Irish nationalist tradition has tended to oversimplify matters, and Warren convingly argues that major normanisation (anglisation) of the Irish Church didn't really begin in the twelfth century. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 laws came into effect, and are not mentioned anywhere else, so by deduction there had to be something like this Synod to introduce them and have the bishops agree to them. No. 1 "That the faithful throughout Ireland do contract and observe lawful marriages rejecting those with their relations either by consanguinity or affinity." - that was a difficult one on an island with a small population, and I think we ignored it. No. 7 is open to debate, but it's likely that Henry made his views known beforehand when he met the archbishops. Which of them was going to argue with him? It's interesting also that Henry didn't make the Irish church subject to Canterbury, as he might have, but trusted it to bring its practices up to speed.Red Hurley (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Henry probably wouldn't have had papal support for extending Canterburys authority, as could also be seen in the way Rome appointed separate papal legates for Ireland (and Scotland) and England also after the invasion. The Irish clergy probably were so thrilled by the prospects of tithe in no. 3 that they gladly accepted the rest of it as well ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an official tithe was a big plus. But note it had changed from 1 penny per household in Laudabiliter to "animals and corn" because most of Ireland did not use cash money at the time.Red Hurley (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Synod of Cashel. 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) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which year?

[edit]

Was the first Synod of Cashel in 1101 or 1111? Hardly both! Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synod_of_Cashel&oldid=1211948194"