A Protestant Ireland

Qualitymark

I don't think it would have made any difference. The problem in Ireland was that it was an occupied country.
The occupier was its main trading partner, and continually set tariffs that ruined native industries - for example, the Wexford linen industry was bankrupted just before 1798 by one such tax.
The "differences carefully fostered by an alien government" would have been so fostered in any case without religion.

catbear

Qualitymark wrote: »

I don't think it would have made any difference. The problem in Ireland was that it was an occupied country.
The occupier was its main trading partner, and continually set tariffs that ruined native industries - for example, the Wexford linen industry was bankrupted just before 1798 by one such tax.
The "differences carefully fostered by an alien government" would have been so fostered in any case without religion.

The tariffs you mentioned certainly did hold back Ireland economically; incidentally earlier tariffs on wool had given rise to the Linen industry in ireland!

But the era you mention, the late 18th cen was the age of reason, the united Irishmen were protestant, catholic and dissenter and dissenter meant non alignment to any state church be it Catholic or Anglican. It was the dissenter that both London and Rome feared and now newly aligned since the Papacy recognised the Hanoverian claim to the Island Kingdoms (which included Ireland) they set out together to suppress any challenge to the ancient regime.

But while tariffs kept Ireland poor it was reintroduced catholicism that kept dissenters suppressed. Rome was now Britain's ally against republican aspirations and after the French revolution and Napoleonic wars the Papacy couldn't be too choosy about who it sidled up to. It was especially anti republican after the Risorgimento saw it lose the Papal states.

'Protestant' is a RCC appellation and many who Catholics consider protestants would self identify as merely christian but unaligned to any state church. Canterbury and Rome were aligned and organisationally had more in common with eachother than with any other sect that Catholicism defined as protestant within Britain and Ireland and the colonies. Rome recognised the British crown as head of state whereas the American colonies had usurped royalty in favour of a bill of rights. Hence the suspicion of all Catholics as being irreconcilable with the new social contract and puppets of the their great rival and former master Britain.

Whatever rebellious spirit was left in Ireland could be absorbed by Catholic emancipation now that Rome was London's ally. Reestablishing Roman Catholicism in Ireland was the best defense against unaligned dissent. Rome was more than happy to comply after losing France and later would prize Britain's alliance after it lost the papal states.

The latest census had proportionally more Roman Catholics in Ireland than Anglicans in the UK so ironically Ireland through adherence to Rome and it's recognition of the Hanoverian monarchy is unwittingly more royalist than the UK!

the Irish affinity for traditional church and county boundaries via the GAA died out in Britain. It might partially remain in amateur cricket. So irish society remained in an applied semi feudal social structure that was abandoned in mainland Britain during the industrial revolution.

Qualitymark

catbear wrote: »

'Protestant' is a RCC appellation and many who Catholics consider protestants would self identify as merely christian but unaligned to any state church.

Surely not! (If by RCC you mean 'Roman Catholic Church'?) I was just looking at a sadly dull-though-it-had-looked-promising programme on BBC4 about the Georgians, and the plummy presenter was proudly puffing the word 'Protestant' every second sentence. Surely it's an agreed thing that 'Protestant' refers to both those of the British state church and the 'dissenters', both being in 'protest' against a church that had fallen sadly into corruption and superstition?

the Irish affinity for traditional church and county boundaries via the GAA died out in Britain. It might partially remain in amateur cricket. So irish society remained in an applied semi feudal social structure that was abandoned in mainland Britain during the industrial revolution.

Gwan outa that! I have in the last couple of weeks talked to a proud Norfolk man, a proud Shropshire man and a proud Aberdeenshire man! Not to mention the proud folks of Antrim, Tyrone, etc.

GaelMise

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short, I don’t think there’s any very clear correlation between conformity to the established church and retention of language.

The negative attitude of the Catholic church towards the Irish Language is commonly identified as one of the factors that lead to the decline of the Irish Language in the 19th century.

Well, I have to point out that we were part of the UK from 1801 to 1922, and before that we were ruled colonially by the British, and neither period was characterised by good infrastructure, low levels of corruption, etc.

Indeed the thirty year period prior to independance was characterised by rampant corruption which independance put an end to. The 20 year period following independance by contrast were characterised by an impressive level of political stablilty and probriarty in public office.

Qualitymark

Theobald Wolfe Tone's speech from the dock might be of interest here, in particular this paragraph:

"I have laboured to abolish the infernal spirit of religious persecution, by uniting the Catholics and Dissenters. To the former I owe more than ever can be repaid. The service I was so fortunate as to render them they rewarded munificently; but they did more: when the public cry was raised against me—when the friends of my youth swarmed off and left me alone—the Catholics did not desert me; they had the virtue even to sacrifice their own interests to a rigid principle of honour; they refused, though strongly urged, to disgrace a man who, whatever his conduct towards the Government might have been, had faithfully and conscientiously discharged his duty towards them; and in so doing, though it was in my own case, I will say they showed an instance of public virtue of which I know not whether there exists another example."

robp

catbear wrote: »

'Protestant' is a RCC appellation and many who Catholics consider protestants would self identify as merely Christian but unaligned to any state church. Canterbury and Rome were aligned and organisationally had more in common with eachother than with any other sect that Catholicism defined as protestant within Britain and Ireland and the colonies. Rome recognised the British crown as head of state whereas the American colonies had usurped royalty in favour of a bill of rights. Hence the suspicion of all Catholics as being irreconcilable with the new social contract and puppets of the their great rival and former master Britain.

Whatever rebellious spirit was left in Ireland could be absorbed by Catholic emancipation now that Rome was London's ally. Reestablishing Roman Catholicism in Ireland was the best defense against unaligned dissent. Rome was more than happy to comply after losing France and later would prize Britain's alliance after it lost the papal states.
Rome recognised the British crown as head of state whereas the American colonies had usurped royalty in favour of a bill of rights. Hence the suspicion of all Catholics as being irreconcilable with the new social contract and puppets of the their great rival and former master Britain.

It is true that Catholics were viewn with great suspicion in the American colonies but that does not mean Catholics were opposed to the Bill of Rights or the new political system. Catholics played prominent role in the American forces during the American Revolution even though historically they often uniquely targeted for persecution in the colonies. For instance Catholicism was outlawed in Jamestown despite freedom of religion for other faiths.
If Catholics were associated with Britain, it was only as Canada was particularly Catholic and royalist but Catholics didn’t achieve freedom of religion in Canada till 1774.
Given the bloody extremism of the French Revolution it is natural that the Vatican was deeply against the French revolution but this attitude was not shown to the American Revolution. Indeed, it did not stop the Vatican establishing an American church in Baltimore in the early days of the US.

If shoring up Catholicism in Ireland was the best defence against dissent in Ireland it was only due to a inevitable repulsion amongst clerical ranks at the horrific excesses in France’s revolution and France’s invasion of the Vatican.

catbear

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely not! (If by RCC you mean 'Roman Catholic Church'?) I was just looking at a sadly dull-though-it-had-looked-promising programme on BBC4 about the Georgians, and the plummy presenter was proudly puffing the word 'Protestant' every second sentence. Surely it's an agreed thing that 'Protestant' refers to both those of the British state church and the 'dissenters', both being in 'protest' against a church that had fallen sadly into corruption and superstition?.

There were many christian sects already mentioned that saw themselves as apart from the state church models of Anglicanism and Catholicism. Wesley famously declared "all the world is my parish", a stance which would have included and not been adverse to the incumbents; although that didn't stop them feeling threatened by it. He and his followers would felt they were professing and not protesting their Christianity.

Some sects like the anabaptists saw themselves as the chosen or elect and all others were outside gods kingdom.

Just remember Luther didn't want to leave the church, he wanted to refocus it as many others had done previously like St Francis, the displaying of treatise on church doors was normal until someone with a printing press took Luther's tracts and redistributed amongst the general public; Luther's points weren't that different to Erasmus yet the advent of mass media brought what previously would have been discussed within the church out into the flock.

The title 'protestant' would indicate that they are still within the church although at odds. Whereas many christians believe that the Pope is merely the bishop of Rome and that god speaks directly to the believer without any intermediary. I would accept that Anglican would use "protestant" but only because they're a sister church whereas many other christian movements look neither to Rome or Canterbury or to any central authority. They'd rather be known by their deeds than their titles.

Reekwind

catbear wrote: »

'Protestant' is a RCC appellation and many who Catholics consider protestants would self identify as merely christian but unaligned to any state church.

They can self-identify however they wish but 'Protestantism' refers to the intellectual heritage, not the relation to any state church. This was true even before disestablishment, no one would suggest that Calvanists, for example, were "still within the church".

Edit: And the idea that "'Protestant' is a RCC appellation" is somewhat undermined by the fact that the term was used from the earliest days by Protestants themselves, eg the Protestantische Union

catbear

A Roman Catholic would see all others as Protestant whereas some of those would not see themselves as either estranged or apart from Rome as all Christians would have the same root but varying philosophies. One mans protestant is another mans christian. The Copts and orthodox are not Roman Catholic yet non are known as Protestant.

Reekwind

catbear wrote: »

A Roman Catholic would see all others as Protestant whereas some of those would not see themselves as either estranged or apart from Rome as all Christians would have the same root but varying philosophies. One mans protestant is another mans christian. The Copts and orthodox are not Roman Catholic yet non are known as Protestant.

Again: "intellectual heritage". Neither the Oriental Orthodox nor Eastern Orthodox churches emerged as part of the Protestant Reformation (the clue is in the name) or followed in its intellectual wake. Hence no Catholic would ever refer to them as Protestant (and nor would they do so themselves). Similarly no one would consider Sedevacantists, who broke with the Church for entirely different reasons, to be Protestant.

You're trying to make relative what is actually very simple and fairly fixed.

One mans protestant is another mans christian

That makes little sense. Every Protestant is a Christian, nobody would deny that. But not every Christian who is not in communion with Rome is Protestant. We capitalise the latter for a reason.

catbear

Coptic and and orthodox were schismic, just like the later reformation.

Reekwind

catbear wrote: »

Coptic and and orthodox were schismic, just like the later reformation.

And? That's not why Protestants are called 'Protestant'. I've explained this above.

By using 'Protestant' as a synonym for 'schismatic' you're glossing over centuries of history, plus some very technical doctrinal issues, in order to use your own personal idiosyncratic definition.

catbear

Isn't difference of opinion the reason for schisms?

Qualitymark

Surely the term 'Protestant' is broadly used to mean non-Catholic Christians? (Apologies to Anglicans who regard themselves as Catholic - I'm using it in the generally understood sense.)
This is what the Oxford English Dictionary says:

A member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Protestant?q=Protestant

Reekwind

catbear wrote:

Isn't difference of opinion the reason for schisms?

There are many reasons for schisms, including doctrinal, political, personal, economic, etc, etc. But we only call those churches whose roots (historical or intellectual) date back to the Reformation 'Protestant'. That's because this is the label that they themselves adopted (following the Protestation of 1529). It is simply incorrect to broaden this label to mean all those who have broken with Rome.

Qualitymark wrote:

Surely the term 'Protestant' is broadly used to mean non-Catholic Christians?

Not at all. The definition that you've provided is accurate. To highlight the relevant passage:

"A member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches."

So your categorisation (as 'non-Catholic Christians') is accurate only so long as we ignore the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians. Plus the much smaller miscellaneous groups, such as the traditionalists who broke with Rome over Vatican II. That is, people who have broken with Rome for reasons other than those "in accordance with the principles of the Reformation". There are many Christians who are neither Catholic nor Protestant.

Fratton Fred

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely the term 'Protestant' is broadly used to mean non-Catholic Christians? (Apologies to Anglicans who regard themselves as Catholic - I'm using it in the generally understood sense.)

Small c. Anglicans are part of the holy catholic and apostolic church.

Qualitymark

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Small c. Anglicans are part of the holy catholic and apostolic church.

Hmmmmaybe http://www.anglicancatholic.org

Fratton Fred

Qualitymark wrote: »

Hmmmmaybe http://www.anglicancatholic.org

Now we're getting in to low and high church. My understanding is that Anglo-Catholics are very high church. This concept doesn't really exist in the church of Ireland though.

In England, high churches aren't as Catholic as some American Anglo-Catholic churches and low churches can be very casual and evangelical (think reactors in chinos and polo shirts and a small rock band instead of a choir and organ). They are all Anglicans, all catholics, but not all Anglo-Catholic

katydid

deirdremf wrote: »

,.
The Germanic linguistic group went protestant, the Latin group remained catholic, the Slavic group became orthodox.

There are large areas of Germany that remained Roman Catholic, and of course practically the whole of Austria.

katydid

robp wrote: »

No but you could insert any central Catholic specific teaching and it would be true. BTW all Christian denominations that I know of have bishops. They are not specific to Catholicism.

Not really. Most Protestant denominations don't have bishops. The Methodists don't, the Presbyterians don't, the Baptists don't. Mainly it would be the Anglicans and Lutherans.

Mahogany

Amazing to think how much better off we'd be had we converted.

Protestantism would've lead to the English not detesting us so much, which would lead to at least a little industrialisation, probably centred around just Dublin and Belfast but sure it's better then nothing. There would have been no plantations as a result, therefore the north being just as Green as us down here. We'd be more urban, which is much better for us. We'd have a Dublin of about 1.5 mill with large surrounding towns such as Swords, Bray, Celbridge etc. Would also mean our beautiful beautiful topography is better preserved. Connacht would have only about 300,000 living there I'd hazard a guess.

Our population would still be quite low, I'd say roughly 7 mill, which is a good thing. We'd be quite like Scotland to be honest, low population density overall but large enough, functional urban areas with good quality infrastructure. An underground in Dublin with 5 or 6 lines, and a connection to the airport. I'd say we'd have still gone for independence, but based on Gaelic, Protestant, more Irish speaking ideals rather then Catholic and English speaking.

I don't think we'd have stayed Anglican by the way, I reckon we would've gone down the Reformed Protestant route ala Presbyterianism. We'd probably still be quite more religious then our counterparts across the water but no where near to the extent Catholicism has on our society. I'd also think the West, North West & South of the island would've retained a sizeable Catholic community.

This is the Ireland I want to live in

catbear

Mahogany wrote: »

Protestantism would've lead to the English not detesting us so much, which would lead to at least a little industrialisation, probably centred around just Dublin and Belfast but sure it's better then nothing. There would have been no plantations as a result, therefore the north being just as Green as us down here. We'd be more urban, which is much better for us.(

Hate to break it to you but the Plantations were started by a Catholic English Queen and just continued thereafter as foreign policy.

Reekwind

Mahogany wrote: »

Protestantism would've lead to the English not detesting us so much...

Because they'd been massive fans of us prior to the Reformation? The reality is that Protestant English attitudes towards the Irish differed little from those of earlier Catholic England. Conquest, colonisation and legislative cultural discrimination were all consistent features of English rule. As early as the Norman invasion the Irish had been seen as inferior - a "rude and unlettered people" in the language of the time.

This is the Ireland I want to live in

Don't you mean the Dublin you want to live in?

DecStone

Mahogany wrote: »

Amazing to think how much better off we'd be had we converted.

Protestantism would've lead to the English not detesting us so much,

I take it you've not read the Statutes of Kilkenny [1366] or Giraldus Cambrensis? Or anything else long before the Reformation. A great deal of anti-Irish stuff there especially attacks on Irish law and culture.

The Remonstrance of Donal O'Neill and other Irish chieftains to the Pope in 1317 sets out many of the issues and problems they were having with the English presence.

Qualitymark

catbear wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but the Plantations were started by a Catholic English Queen and just continued thereafter as foreign policy.

What Catholic queen?

I don't personally think it would have made any difference whether we were Catholic or Protestant; we were a colony, the first place that England learned to set up plantations and kill or banish the natives. You hate whom you harm.

catbear

Qualitymark wrote: »

What Catholic queen?

Queens county (laois) and kings county (offaly) after Philip, Portlaoise used to be called maryborough.

DecStone

Qualitymark wrote: »

What Catholic queen?

.

Queen Mary. First born daughter of Henry VIII. She remained Catholic after the Reformation and succeeded her half brother Edward VI.

Qualitymark

Yeah, kind of what I'm saying. Because they'd succeeded in making our country their colony, we were 'the natives', just as a succession of Indians, Africans and other groups would be considered their inferiors, only suitable to be cleared away and have the good land given to proper loyal English and later Scottish lowland farmers. Religion just became another excuse.

Mahogany

Reekwind wrote: »

Because they'd been massive fans of us prior to the Reformation? The reality is that Protestant English attitudes towards the Irish differed little from those of earlier Catholic England. Conquest, colonisation and legislative cultural discrimination were all consistent features of English rule. As early as the Norman invasion the Irish had been seen as inferior - a "rude and unlettered people" in the language of the time.

Don't you mean the Dublin you want to live in?

Neither were the Scots, and no, the Ireland I want to live in.

Reekwind

Mahogany wrote: »

Neither were the Scots

In the sense that the Scots (Lowlands at least) were not treated the same as the Irish, no. That's by both Catholic and Protestant monarchs.

Scotland, perhaps because it was a unitary kingdom, had always been treated as a near-equal to England; something that was only reinforced by continuing Norman influence. By the end of the 12th C the 'Normanisation' of Scotland had progressed to the point that that was little difference between the 'English' and 'Scottish' elites or modes of government. This is in contrast to Ireland where, far from bringing the island into line with European/Carolingian norms, the initial Norman invaders had largely gone native; preserving the difference between 'civilised' England and 'barbaric' Ireland. (Bartlett's Making of Europe is covers this ground well.)

Again, all this pre-dates religion. Ireland and Scotland were on divergent tracks long before the Reformation.