Talk:Penkridge

message: The article currently has: on the River Penk from which its name is derived.
It is more likely that the river name is a back-formation from the name Penkridge, since there was a British settlement in the vicinity called Pencric or Penncrug (Romanized as Pennocrucium) and meaning "head (i.e. end) of the ridge".    -- Picapica 11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation of name 

message: I have removed the following unsourced and misplaced information pending verification of its accuracy:
.Penkridge has under ground tunnels linking the church to surroundin pubs, used by king charles the second when in need of a speedy escape
.Penkridge has underground brooks
.Half of penkridge was bulit on top of a roman burial ground, some road include druids way, knights close, blount close and the surrounding roads
.Penkridge is home to the famous sea badger that lives in the river penk
Greg 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced info

message: A wealth of detailed and well-researched information has been added over time to this article. However, in it's current form the volume of medieval and related background, including images, greatly overwhelms the other content on the page. Additionally, a lot of specialized terminology (medieval legal and clerical terms, etc) not familar - or perhaps of general interest - to the lay public is utilized. It seem to me that this skews the article from its intent, which is to be a readable encyclopedia entry on Penkridge in general. Would be interested in other opinions on this - one solution would be to split off the detailed information to its own article (perhaps "History of Penkridge"?) and link to it from a briefer, summary section in this one?Shorn again (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added quite a bit myself, and was thinking about extracting and expanding the history of St. Michael's church. That should knock the stuffing out of the medieval stuff, and the church has been of such significance that it probably deserves a separate section. There are many churches of much less importance with their own pages: Midlanders are generally too modest about their cultural heritage (although that does at least have the advantage of keeping it for ourselves). Sjwells53 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the next couple of weeks, I propose to (1) move the historical material as a whole to a separate entry and replace it with a summary, focussing on major themes, (2) extract some of the church material from the new history article and expand it to create an entry for St. Michael's church and college. Does that seem a good idea? I'm quite happy to sort this out, as I feel responsible for the current overloading. Obviously, the history section of any article on an ancient town or village is going to be substantial, but it should not overwhelm the rest. I hope someone is going to feel inspired to sort out the description of the settlement today, which is still quite weak. Sjwells53 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SJWells, that seems like an excellent and detailed plan. I look forward to helping in any way my own limited (and non-historically-versed) skill set allows. I've already learned that hides have nothing to do with cattle and bovates have no place in a thermos, so there is hope! Shorn again (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic information

message: Under subsection "Importance of the Church" appears this:
"The focus of worship was prayer and sacrifice for the dead, not care for the living."
I question these two words - as far as I can understand Christian worship even then not include any kind of sacrifices (animal etc).  I wonder if it is a non-Christian's mistaken comment or the word used meant something other than sacrificial rites? I am holding fire on deleting them to allow someone to answer.Cloptonson (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The medieval Western Church had a strongly held belief that the Mass is a bloody sacrifice, a repetition of Christ's death at Calvary. This is intrinsically linked to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, in which the elements become the actual, substantial body and blood of Christ: hence the priest offers up the real flesh and blood on the altar. This is the background to the institution of the chantry, in which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered perpetually for the health of the soul of the departed. I'm afraid you may have been misled by modern ideas about Holy Communion, in which, whether in the Catholic or the Protestant traditions, participation is all and the Eucharistic liturgy is an act of sharing by the community: medieval Catholicism thought in an entirely different way. I wrote the section in question and my degree was in Theology and History, so I have made a serious study of the subject. I also wrote the article on John Mirk, where you will encounter typical popular late medieval texts that make exactly the point I am trying to summarise for you, complete with confirmatory miracles. When doing History it is vital to realise that people in the past did not necessarily think like us, even if they sometimes used the same verbal formulae. The modern Roman Catholic Church, of course, maintains virtually the same formal doctrinal position as in the 15th century, and some Anglicans hold more or less the same positions, but this does not mean that modern Catholics and Anglicans think like their 15th century forebears. In the late medieval period many, perhaps the majority, of masses were offered as sacrifices for the dead, with no congregation present beyond the priests. They were seen as essentially private acts, endowed by wealthy families on behalf of their own ancestors. That is why, when the laity, particularly many middle-class women, began to think of the Eucharist as an opportunity for mystical communion with the divine in the late medieval period, they were forced in many cases to set up fraternities and sororities to pay poor morrow priests to celebrate for them - something which happened at Penkridge and many other great churches in the region. Notice that even this view, which generated a widespread clamour for frequent communion, is entirely different from the concerns of the 16th century Reformers, and even more different from contemporary orientations to the Mass. Sjwells53 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  SJ, while as usual I trust you are technically correct, I fear this specialized use of the term might be lost on a general audience. Perhaps it would suffice to address both concerns by saying "prayer and masses for the dead, not care for the living."? Shorn again (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd better fix it how you like. It doesn't really matter does it? Sjwells53 (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, doesn't seem like so big a deal if you feel it maintains the intent, great. Edited. Shorn again (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. I've just lost the will to argue. I find people seldom care about the facts where religion is concerned. I was accused of being ignorant and anti-Christian and my explanation, based on actual knowledge, clearly counts for nothing, so why bother? Sjwells53 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry you perceive things that way. Seeing your exchange with Cloptonson, my own intent was merely to look for a common-usage solution that would address both your lengthy and specialized explanation and his confusion, which it is likely a general reader would share. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to improve it. Shorn again (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having today seen Sjwells' answer, I accept his explanation and I apologise for any apparent (but not intended) belittling of their religious knowledge. I was thinking that people from other cultures than my English may be studying our history and reading this article. (Many wikipedians are Indian for example.)Cloptonson (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like appeals to the ignorance of the general public: I don't share this contempt for people, who I think are all different, not general. I don't accept my explanation is in the least "specialised": the "sacrifice of the Mass" is still a term in constant use in the Roman and other Catholic churches, familiar to all members of those groups, although the prevailing discourse is increasingly about community and sharing. I don't find justifications referring to "cultures other than English" at all convincing: the Catholic Church is enormously important across Europe, the USA, Latin America, Africa and Asia. Incidentally, India, which people love to pick on in such contexts without apparently checking the facts, has a Catholic population of at least 20 million, outnumbering that of England and Wales by about 4:1. Moreover, I don't for one moment believe that familiarity with the concept of sacrifice is confined to one denomination: my background is Protestant and I seem to have picked it up. Enough said. Sjwells53 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable religious statement

message: This seems a point of controversy: Ordnance Survey  reckons it's a town. PamD 14:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town or village?