would be interesting for Celtic next to the church itself, with prestige in Ireland also works in Brittany another autonomous church, the Gallican Church, which retained the liturgical forms in use and the French language. [Tristanbriker, 9 Nov 2009]
Dr. Ian Paisley was NOT the leader of the United Presbyterian Church, but of the Free Presbyterian Church. He was, and is, a fundamentalist and could not take the liberalism of the United Church. He most certainly would not be part of a union with the Roman Catholic Church. I could see the Free Presbyterians joining a Celtic Church only if it was "Presbyerian" in all but name! SouthWriter 16:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't Paisley have died when Belfast was nuked?Todyo1798 17:28, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Ian Paisley was a representative of North Antrim (three northernmost counties). Unless parliament was in session (in London), or in Europe, or in North Ireland (near Belfast), he would not have been under siege. Being simultaneously a member of three bodies, while also a local pastor and moderator of a denomination makes Paisley hard to place on a certain day. He may have even been traveling to the USA, where he had contacts in the Fundamentalist community (especially with Bob Jones University). --SouthWriter 20:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It does seem unlikely that Protestants of Paisley's type would up and join something like this. Anglicans and Catholics could probably find enough common ground, especially in a post-DD world.
- The other option would be making the "Celtic Church" a very loose umbrella organization for Christians of many different doctrines in the British Isles, who surely would have seen the need to work together at a time like that, but who would have maintained their autonomy. Benkarnell 20:17, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well the chances of Paisley dying are quite high, either due to his location on a missile target, his plane crashing into the atlantic or radiation poisoning taking hold. Or he could have just died earlier, the Queen dies earlier in this TL, why not Ian? If he's dead then we could work from the the idea that Free Presbyterian Church elected a less secterian leader, or simply collapsed.Todyo1798 21:03, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- The basic doctrines of the FPC are probably not going to change if Paisley dies. Nor is a devoted church going to collapse without reason - and, indeed, the more zealous the church is, the more likely it is to hold together. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Ulster - it describes itself as "fundamentalist, evangelical, and separatist." My best guess is the FPS either stays out of the Celtic Church, or only joins if it is allowed to maintain complete organizational and doctrinal independence, with the Celtic Church acting only as an umbrella organization for helping people and proclaiming the Gospel in a vague, ill-defined sense. Either way, it's a very small organization that wouldn't have a huge impact on the events of this article overall. Benkarnell 21:35, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
It would probably stay out, I just think that an organisation like this will help keep Ulster unionism going. And if that happens, then the chances of a UDA/UVF bombing campaign would be more likely. Thats actually something that really needs to be addressed in the CA TL, what happens to the terrorists? Todyo1798 21:56, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I obviously stopped following this page, but you bring up a good poing, Todyo, what does happens to the terrorists? Their reason for being fully gets "blown away." They were fighting a United Kingdom that wanted to control the whole island of Ireland but had settled with the northern counties. The terrorists -- on both sides -- used religion as an excuse, but it was Irish Nationalism that kept the Catholics in the fray. Unionism was a side issue with the moderate protestants like Paisley and the Free Presbyterian Church.
- Looking at the situation after the UK came to an end, it is hard to see why any terrorists would stay in "business." Evil would still exist, I'm sure, but wouldn't most folk just be trying to survive? The Protestants of Northern Ireland would not reasonably insist on "being part of the UK." However, they might wish to form their own autonomous state, which does not seem to have happened. I am not sure that the Fundamentalists would have gone that far. They propbably would have petitioned the new government for autonomy. SouthWriter 19:34, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
The churches of Northumbria and the Church of Albion (based in Cleveland) would like to unify with the Celtic Church in 2020.--Smoggy80 19:02, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
It seems that you are lumping the IRA - not a religious organization - with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. It is especially appalling that you would attribute "bombings" to the "radical Protestants" with no distinction. The purpose for the existence of the IRA ceases with the destruction of the UK as we know it. I find it highly suspect that even the liberal Church of Scotland would go along with this joining of what seems to be an Anglicization of Catholicism.
I will agree that the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster might be vehemently opposed to any unification, but I think the referring to that as "radical" is not called for. It appears that you may have also be referring to the Free Presbyterians of Scotland (the FC, the UFC, and FPC, among others) among the "radicals." I think it would be better to refer to the political radicals against the new political union and the "conservative" denominations against the ecclesiastical union. SouthWriter 19:07, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
It is very an ongoing reclamation project. About half of the references like that are notes for further expansion when I'm a touch more awake to think it through better, lol.
The "radicals" really doesn't mean anyone in particular at this time, although thank you for giving some clues in advance of said research. However, given the historical context, at least in Northern Ireland, the two are one and the same. Elsewhere they would be different, but not there, and that is what such statements refer towards.
As for the Church of Scotland going along with it or not, there are three major concessions to them built into this at this time, being that the sacraments as Anglicans and Catholics would recognize them are not mandatory, the Church begins to go more basic in its ritual/churches, and the Scottish Kirk model is retained for below the dioceses. I fully realize that it's not that obvious at this time, but it is, and will be, improving. To the best of my knowledge, those are the three key differences between Anglican and Scottish churches, ignoring the dioceses not existing in the Scottish Church, though I realize that there are many other smaller ones. Please note, as well, that I do remember your knowledge of such matters, and as such I'm willing to listen to any pointers.
Lordganon 06:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)