How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill
[Y] Google Books review here.
I would like a Vyrso collection of all of Cahill's books.
I would love to see this book to, I think it might be a good fit for Logos, especially as a resource for people studying Celtic Christianity.
Blessings,
Philana
especially as a resource for people studying Celtic Christianity.
edit: OK, forget this post if you do not read Latin. I just discovered this volume is one of those not in English. Just get us the suggested Cahill book and we won't start a riot. [:@]
While it is not quite like Cahill's book this resource in Community Pricing includes a volume on Early Christianity in Ireland and Britain.
Why not bid on it? 18 volumes (half in English) for only $20
Ussher's views on the Celtic church are part of a discreditted / unsubstantiated understanding of the history of the Celtic Church - wikipedia provides an overview of various wishful thinking view of the Celtic church.
I would expect Catholics and Protestants would disagree on this particular point. After all, this debate has split Ireland and fomented a bloody war for a long time. I tried to find the "discredited" part of the Wikipedia article but only came up with these two relevant quotes"
"In 1631, he had published a Discourse on the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish, a ground-breaking study of the early Irish church, which sought to demonstrate how it differed from Rome and was, instead, much closer to the later Protestant church. This was to prove highly influential, establishing the idea that the Church of Ireland was the true successor of the early Celtic church – a belief which persists down to the present day."
"And indeed, after his death Ussher's reputation as a saintly scholar ensured that his posthumous endorsement was sought by a wide range of writers and ecclesiastical leaders, from the seventeenth century nonconformists to the nineteenth century Oxford movement. His scholarly achievements remain considerable – his work in sorting out the genuine from the spurious letters of Ignatius was a milestone in the study of that important early-church father; and his pioneering gathering of sources relating to early Irish church history laid the foundation for much subsequent research. Even his efforts to identify the date of creation, often derided these days, gathered together the most up to date scientific, chronological, historical and biblical scholarship in an impressive synthesis."
Most disagreements on the canon of scripture will claim the other variants are unsubstantiated and can be discredited. I find Ussher's reluctance to take a harsh stand a refreshing difference from the dogmatic figures on both sides of the many great debates of the time.
I would expect Catholics and Protestants would disagree on this particular point.
I don't think the history in this particular case falls into Catholic/Protestant disagreements - although there was a short period in which the Church of England favored this view.. In my reading, those seeking to elevate Celtic Christianity into a relatively independent branch tend to place Celtic Christianity as they understand it into the Orthodox fold. The other major contemporary renewals of Celtic Christianity are ecumenical and new age.
Do you have any specific contemporary church historian to which you can refer me that supports Ussher's position?
I find Ussher's reluctance to take a harsh stand
Well, er .. a... from wikipedia
"He called a secret meeting of the Irish bishops in his house in November of 1626, the result being the "Judgement of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of Ireland". This begins:
The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin..""
All I was trying to say was that Ussher is not a reasonable substitute for How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill
[Y] to the whole of Cahill's Hinges of History series: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/cahill/bio.html.
(And MJ, could you please stop putting your most interesting comments in edits to earlier posts. Edits don't show up in the e-mails, so I generally miss them.)
I find Ussher's reluctance to take a harsh stand Well, er .. a... from wikipedia "He called a secret meeting of the Irish bishops in his house in November of 1626, the result being the "Judgement of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of Ireland". This begins: The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin..""
Notice James Ussher rarely took a stand alone. Luther never need a posse to back him up. Ussher was only a catalyst for the general public sentiment of Ireland. And the issue in Ireland has always been church polity. They never gave a hoot about how many wives Henry the VIII wanted to divorce or how many kingdoms could be united under the church.
No, I agree the two are light years apart. But we are a little closer to having Ussher in Logos than Cahill. When I read up on a subject I invariably read some good books and some duds. Anyone's recounting of history will be skewed by their own retelling. I'd like to see the Durant's Story of Civilization in Logos too. But I definitely know they slant history against Christianity. The truth of the whole matter probably lies somewhere in between the differing accounts.
