Lord Gill has been appointed as Scotland’s most senior judge, the Scottish Government announced today.
He is the first Catholic to hold the role and will replace Lord Hamilton, who retires next week. First Minister Alex Salmond described Lord Gill as a man of ‘great stature and integrity,’ who had the ability to improve the justice system. Read more
Lord Gill is, arguably, typical of “top” Catholics in professional life. Catholics, I mean, who make of their religion a “private matter” to be kept at bay during the hours of nine to five, so to speak.
I could ask “why is this?” But that would be disingenuous. As the Pope himself said, on election, those who hold to the basic tenets of the Creed are now regarded as extremists; who’s ever going to appoint to the position of Scotland’s most senior Judge, someone who is a known religious ”extremist”? No, in human terms, it’s obvious why Lord Gill’s Catholicism is not much known outside of certain Catholic circles; why, apparently, he prefers to play it down.
The question for debate here is, how can we change this false perception of fully believing and committed Catholics? Blogger, leprechaun asked me a while back if we could discuss this issue because, in his experience, Catholics adhering to the entire traditional Catholic Faith are regarded not just as “extremists” these days but as “bigots”. Since Lord Gill is a supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass, actively working for its provision through Una Voce Scotland for many years, we may presume that he, like leprechaun, falls into the category of a fully believing “traditional” Catholic, friendly photo-shoots with the liberal Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien notwithstanding.
Well? Is there a false perception of “traditional” Catholics out there – and if so, should we try to change that false image?
-
At one time Lord Gill used to be a regular attender at the SSPX Mass Centre in Edinburgh but stopped because ( I was told) his wife didn’t approve. I rather suspect his career had more to do with it. He is,or was, the organist at St. Columba’s church which is just under half a mile away from St. Margaret’s and St. Leonard’s which is the SSPX church in Edinburgh.
-
Editor, I think this issue is a lot more complex than it might seem at first glance. There are at least 3 different levels of perception that are creating the problem:
1. The misconceptions of traditionalists among “mainstream” Catholics.
2. The misconceptions of traditionalists among the secular world.
3. The misconceptions of religious devotion and faith in general among the secular world.As to Problem 1, we are perceived in a number of unfavorable ways within the Church herself: on the level of Church law, as schismatics and disobedient renegades whose priests have no canonical mission/status and who reject the “teachings” of Vatican II; on the level of liturgical and catechetical preferences, as stubborn rigid Neanderthals who cling to an outmoded, archaic museum-piece of a liturgy which has no “relevance” to the modern world (or which fails to promote “active participation” and “community”); on the level of personality, as intolerant and haughty and holier-than-thou.
The perceptions of Problem 1, in fact, feed the perceptions of Problem 2. Not only that, but the criticisms of us from within the Church are used against us by the secular enemies of the Church, amplified and made more malicious. Since we refuse to “mellow out” along with the rest of the post-Conciliar Church, refuse to adopt the new ecumenism, the new pan-religious syncretism, the new non-condemnation of the evils of the world, we are labeled as intolerant, extremist, anti-Semitic, homophobic (thank you, Michael Voris), and thus dangerous to a peaceful and harmonious civil society.
(BTW, the idea that strict adherence to religious beliefs is dangerous to civil society is one of the benefits, from Satan’s perspective, of the new advent of Islam.)
Problem 3 therefore directly results from Problems 1 and 2, as those misconceptions, cleverly managed, orchestrated, and exaggerated by the satanic propaganda machine, become the basis for labeling all serious religious devotion as harmful to society. Since faith is condemned as harmful to society (even if only on a relatively tame level, such as “violation of the separation of church and state”), then the public practice of it and fidelity to it becomes harmful to one’s career.
As to solutions to this Gordian Knot, I think it has to start with Rome’s public embrace of Tradition, i.e. with undoing Problem 1. That is, with the regularization of the SSPX, and esp. with the frequent public celebration, by the Pope and the Curia, of the Traditional Mass. This then will hopefully filter down to the bishops, and from thence throughout their dioceses.
If Rome can do this, without appearing to reject the disasters of Vatican II (i.e. by saving face – and Bishop Fellay has acknowledged that Rome needs to save face throughout this process. That position is in itself a refutation of the Bishop Williamson position), then I think we’ll be on a roll.
But it will be a slow roll until the Consecration is performed and the Third Secret is revealed.
-
Torkay, you have laid it out for me exactly what is happening in the here and now. I have been accused by a family member of being schismatic and a fanatic. And I am one of many who attend the SSPX chapels who are in the same category.
-
Torkay,
While I agree with much of what you say I think there is another reason for the misconceptions among mainstream Catholics.
I know young people, girls in particular, who are put off “traditional” Catholics because of their old fashioned ideas about life in the modern world. They think they are expected to wear skirts around their ankles and not aspire to university, not have television or the internet, in short to live like cult members divorced from the modern world.
In that sense I do think that traditional Catholics need a make-over.
-
This suggestion of “Traditionalists as bigots?” as a blog topic arose from my recently attending the Novus Ordo funeral of an elderly and long-standing friend, and my experience when meeting a number of our mutual friends from whose ranks I have been noticeably absent since returning to Tradition some 5 years ago.
I want to instance one particular piece of advice that was given to me after the Mass, after I had said that the Catholics of today had been cruelly deceived, and led along the road towards Protestantism. I was told that my erstwhile Catholic friends had considered for themselves the circumstances pertaining today and had decided that today’s position on the Faith was where they wanted to be, and that for me to tell them they had got it wrong was arrogant and that I should have no friends left if I persisted in that attitude.
They said that the New Mass was simply the ongoing evolution of Masses over the past couple of thousand years and that the purpose remained the same: the making present of Christ’s body and blood so that we could all share together in His banquet.
I think that this illustrates how thorough the brain-washing process has been executed by the Modernists.
The idea that Catholics should subjugate their individual consciences and opinions to the Traditional teachings of the Church seems to have been swept aside and replaced by the Lutheran idea that we are all free to believe whatever we choose to believe. Anyone who challenges this, as I did, is left in no doubt that they are bigots.The question is, as the Editor has said: “How do we change this false image?”
In the meantime, let us all pray that the “irregularity” overhanging the SSPX will be declared at an end by Pope Benedict XVI and that the shoots of a Traditional renewal will yield a fruitful harvest.
Ps: My thanks to Torkay for such a clear assessment of the problem.
-
Elements of Traditional Catholicism consider themselves to be an ‘elect’, more often than not, by clergy and people who have no actual experience or memory of Mother Church prior to the depredations emanating from Vatican II. They, therefore, seek, in a way, to mould a Church of their own making – whilst paying mere lip-service to Mother Church being a church of sinners, because they believe they are ‘the elect’. Further, they have such disdain [complete lack of Charity] for the main body of congregations, who have been led astray by false pastors [who in turn had been led away by inclination or Obedience to superiors] that they would have those congregations dealt with as were we dealt with in the those dark days when the canard, of the abrogation of the Old Mass, was abroad.
Traditionalists, clergy and laity, must approach the problem with Charity and not lording it over people with taunts of heresy, et al and lead by example. From that basis a recovery will start. On the wider front, that recovery can only commence with SSPX within ‘the tent’ – I will forgo the full phrase.
Elements of SSPX condemn diocesan clergy for compromise, when they Celebrate both forms of Mass, this is also counterproductive. Make no mistake, those diocesan clergy get a hard time from their bishops and, with one exception that I know, forego preferment. At the time of my early connection with SSPX, the clergy had most cordial relations with like thinking diocesan clergy and that is how it should be.
No one denies the intellect of +Williamson, but he is a contraversialist and revels in the nomeclature. Pride not Charity appears to be his forte and on that basis he is wrong and sectarianism his solution – in my humble opinion.
Charity and Example is required.
-
Charity has a very important role to play in Christian beliefs – but it must never be cited as a reason for undermining truth. When I say “truth”, I mean the revelations by Christ and latterly by the Holy Ghost through the Pope and his ex cathedra pronouncements.
Archbishop Lefebvre left us his “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” which, to my mind, spelled things out accurately and unambiguously. It seems wrong to me that a Catholic seeking to be faithful to Tradition and re-iterating the words and intentions of the Archbishop, should be urged to tone down their corrections of error in the name of Charity. That would be false Charity if it undermined the Truth, and, with all due respect to Sixupman, it is a caution that needs to be sounded. -
This is quickly turning into the “We hate Bishop Williamson” Blog.
Traditional Catholicism is about holding onto the Tradiotnal Faith- that’s what these past 42 years have been about. It’s not about having a fetish for lace and incense and long-dead languages. And it’s not about turning the clock back to 1950- we have to be much better than that. It is about the Faith. Being a member of Una Voce does not make one a Traditional Catholic.
Neither is being a Tradional Catholic about being popular, so I don’t think we need any image makeovers. We are at war with the world. We’re not here to be liked, and superficial false charity is not going to rebuild the Church or win many converts.
Bishop Williamson is disliked so much because he understands that. He speaks the Truth in season and out, and isn’t cowed into false obedience. Granted, he has never covered up for any pederasts, but still… Surely a Tradional Catholic website can overlook such little omissions.
-
I don’t think it is a matter of being here to be “liked” but those people who describe themselves as “traditional” Catholics can be very offputting. I agree that it’s not about just attending the Latin Mass, but definitely those who attend SSPX chapels regard themselves as “traditional” Catholics just by that very fact. In my own experience, I have to say that I’ve heard lots of stories of people who’ve found them to be unwelcoming and uncharitable.
If I may suggest something of a “make-over” in the way newcomers are welcomed to their Latin Masses and also a bit less emphasis on how people dress. I know of one young girl who was told off by an elderly lady because she was not dressed well enough for that lady’s liking. Just to bear with people until they decide whether or not to continue attending or not, would be a small “make-over” that might draw new adherents.
From the time I heard the Secretary of State for Education in the Labour Government, Ruth Kelly, saying she would not let her Catholic faith change the Government’s direction on sex education, I’ve written off Catholics in public life. They want to get on in this life more than they worry about the next one.
-
Well said, Grignion.
We can never win a PR battle when you consider who owns and runs the organs of influence in this world.
All we can do as Traditional Catholics is to keep the Faith and tell the Truth………. as the subtitle of this blog suggests.
Ultimately we will prevail.
-
Sceptic,
Do you think that it is unimportant that some people may be driven away from the Traditional Latin Mass and whatever other graces may be available to them in a parish where the priest is sound, because some laity (those who speak loudest about being “traditional”) are unwelcoming and have ridiculous ideas, e.g. as per my example about dress? That can’t be blamed on the “organs of influence in this world” – that’s down to those claiming to be “traditional Catholics”.
-
Editor, Editor,
This one is off on a completely false premise (I make no generalization as to Roman theology). Suggesting Lord Gill will be the first “catholic” Lord President is just nonsense. Not, I hasten to add, that LJC Gill would himself say that he was a “first” elevation as LP.
We had Leo telling us recently Innocent IV was no catholic for writing about the Scottish Church, so, now, you suppose LP Cambuskenneth, LP Orkney, LP Ross and LP Brechin were not catholics! How do you make this nonsense up? When it comes to history, our Roman-Catholic brethren (and sistern) deserve a journalistic prize for pure, blind, fecund ignorance.
As to the actual thread, the appointment is not so unusual – neither of the last two Lord Advocates has a native Scottish name and they both sound as if they must come from the Irish Roman-Catholic community, one Govan, the other Coatbridge. So, even if they are hardly new, do private positions need to be kept in the background? Is their some sinister suggestion of careerism being put before belief?
Clearly, if private views extend to the ne plus ultra, if people hurl “Protestant” or “Lutheran” around as a term of abuse they would, rightly, be disqualified from holding high judicial office, in much the way as Holocaust denial is unacceptable in a bishop to the modern-day Vatican. The Scots idiom, that when you think everyone else is “a’ oot o’ step bar oor Jock” is a fair guide to identification of the unacceptable face of extremism. It exists.
An interest in traditional liturgies or older church music is not quite in that class. You happened to mention, in another thread, that you knew a couple of priests who had “never heard of” the older liturgical customs of the Scottish church. So, what happens when a distinguished lawyer decides that it really is time to do something about an appalling state of pure ignorance and sets about a legal study of the Decretals of Innocent III, as published by Gregory IX?
The lawyer makes a big effort to discover how papal Judges Delegate worked and how papal Decretals related to the customs of the Scottish church, dos, terce and all the rest. Publishes a book or two. If this is a personal hobby, there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in what a consenting adult does in private. But if it becomes public knowledge that a man is taking an unhealthy interest in the pope of Rome and the arcane rules of canon law then that, in a sectarian country like Scotland, may create a suspicion that the new LP will not, exactly, be impartial. He might have to decide a marital dispute in Bridget McGinn v Bob Williamson, or deal with some Ibrox advocate caught singing his way through a quick drunken chorus of “up to the knees in Fenian blood”. For that reason, senior Scottish lawyers keep their private lives and hobbies to themselves, not exactly a secret, but well out of the public arena. It is not hiding anything about personal faith, just avoiding an impression of partiality. Same is true of any academic writing.
So when (it is a strange old world) it just so happens that an advocate quietly interested in Innocent III goes on to become LP, nobody particularly comments and not many people even know. There will be no orange outcry; and those ignorant priests you mentioned have clearly never read the Lord President’s source book or suspected it even existed! No pope Innocent here or there. Impartially ignored but the ignorant on both sides.
We can have a society where a religious test is a qualification for any public office (as in England, 1662-1835). Or we can make it a strictly private matter if, at the chapel on Sundays, to atone for past deeds, a man said patters and ages and counted his beads. With politics, you can probably argue that one either way. When it comes to lawyers who are going to have to make decisions in contested cases, it really doesn’t help if their private interests and opinions are too well known.
It would help, however, if they managed to educate their fellow-Romanists out of invincible historical ignorance. I can only do my limited best.
-
Grignon
I am not personally aware of a “we hate Bishop Williamson” mentality on this blog. Some people, myself included, have written forthrightly about His Excellency’s controversial methods (so very different from the other SSPX Bishops and from the way Archbishop Lefebvre conducted himself), but none of us has written in a way that could remotely be described as hateful.
I will post for you again links to two letters that I sincerely hope you will read before considering further comment. These letters are by Bishop Fellay and Fr. Daniel Couture respectively. I hope reading them will give you a more complete understanding of the situation, as well as of a need on all our parts to pray more and say less in the matter.
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/letter-from-bishop-fellay-to-bishop.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/sspx-rome-appeal-from-asian-district.html
-
Athanasius,
I have read those two letters. I read them some time ago. My opinion has not changed. I have also re-read some of Bishop Fellay’s letters from just a few years ago. It’s interesting how times have changed.
It’s clear there is an overriding opinion on this blog, that is in favour of a practical deal, whatever the cost, and anyone who disagrees with the party line is branded “angry,” “schismatic,” “sedevacantist.” These are adjectives that have been used to describe me of late. People have suggested that I hold the opinion I do because I am comfortable in the status quo, which is absurd.
I’ll take your advice about further comment on this blog.
-
Anthony the Great
As one who has attended SSPX Masses for 25 years, I have to agree with you about that hard core element which is unwelcoming and Amish in its dress sense. Fortunately, though, such unhappy souls are in the minority and getting fewer by the year. God spare us from bitter zeal!
-
I think Athanasius is spot on. Let’s pray more and say less for the moment. There will be plenty to discuss when we know more.
In the meantime, there’s plenty to discuss on this thread not relating to the SSPX-Rome discussions.
-
Grignion
If such is your view, then I fear you will have to wait a long time for that Damascus-like conversion to happen in Rome. Miracles on that scale can certainly happen, but it’s not really a very practical outlook and certainly not in line with the way God’s grace normally operates.
The other implication of the position you hold, of course, is that it suggests a mistrust of Our Lady. Is it possible that she would reward all that hope in her and all those rosaries by allowing the SSPX to fall for a Modernist ruse that would lead it to its destruction? Bishop Fellay doesn’t believe so for a second. Nor does he believe that Pope Benedict XVI’s intentions are anything other than genuine towards the SSPX.
By the way, a practical agreement with Rome is perfectly acceptable so long as there’s no requirement on our part to compromise the Commandment of God. Archbishop Lefebvre himself actively sought such an arrangement in 1988. I know this because I was there when he talked about it. That experiment only failed because of the lack of clarity on Rome’s part on a date for the consecration of the promised bishop.
Believe me when I say that what was offered to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 is as nothing compared to what may soon be offered to the SSPX. I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre would have had the hand off this Pope for a personal prelature with no compromise.
I don’t know where this new rule demanding Rome’s complete conversion came from, but it certainly didn’t come from the Archbishop.
Now, I can see us getting told off big time for going off topic, so I suggest we let this Rome/SSPX business rest until we know whether or not any offer will be made. No point taking up all this space for something that might not happen anyway.
editor
SORRY!!!!
-
Athanasius,
“And so say all of us.” Outstanding!
-
leprechaun
There is a little nugget in your friends’ response to your position that is quite revealing:
“…for me to tell them they had got it wrong was arrogant and that I should have no friends left if I persisted in that attitude.”
“Having friends” is actually the basis for two of the most destructive aspects of vii: human respect, the foundation of false ecumenism, and “community,” the new secularized environment of the Novus Ordo.
That remark also reveals a complete lack of humility…so perhaps it is quite safe to say that personal failings are rife on both sides of the aisle.
Athanasius
There are several women in our SSPX parish who also dress like Amish. I myself have never met any Amish, so I don’t know how they act, but the behavior of these women is not off-putting as far as I can tell. If only the Amish were converted to the Catholic Faith, they might enjoy life a little more!
——————————————————
Some here have raised the issue of old-fashioned dress. However, I think an important part of the Catholic worldview is that we must approach Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament with modesty and decorum. The modern world, however, like the modern mass, emphasizes casual dress, which actually reflects a casual attitude – and I’m sure we all know about the casual attitude of the Novus Ordo.
I would have to disagree that there is any dress makeover necessary for traditionalists, and I think we are correct to insist that people not show up for Mass wearing jeans or shorts or t-shirts, for example.
I would also like to add that my initial post failed to mention the most important attempt of all to address this problem: the supernatural solution.
With that in mind, I ask: how do we pray, and for what do we pray, to correct this problem?
-
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dressing like an Amish person if that’s what the individual wants to do. The problem is when nosey parkers start dictating to others and try to make a dogma out of a drama!
It should do without saying that one should dress appropriately, particularly when attending Mass. However, the last thing we need is self appointed fashion police who pounce on anything short of amish dress. I think it is appropriate for the priests to encourage people to dress modestly, but we should all realise that fashions do change and there’s more than one way of dressing modestly.
-
Leprechaun:
Prior to Vatican II when Converts were flowing into The Church, they were not harangued, but were met with Patience and Charity. [The haranguing was from Missioners when they got inside.] The large body of diocesan congregations need converting, which must be done with Patience, Charity and example. The alternative is to do to them what they did to us and that I class as revenge and a sin. It is not their fault, it is the fault of bishops, clergy and the upcoming of parish busybodies who have grasped, to some extent, day-to-day control of their churches – where the clergy have surrendered and acquiesced.
None of the above indicates a dilution of The Faith being involved, but an explanation thereof in measured and calm terms.
There are clergy, whom I have come across, which have preached against The Magisterium from the pulpit. They and likeminded laity will never change, but will pass away through time. We must provide for the balance.
-
Torkay
Just you wait till all those Amishly dressed women start arriving at church in ponies and traps!!!
Should a girl in, say, her early 20s be expected to dress in clothes from the early 1920s on the grounds of modesty? No, so long as ‘Mary-like’ modesty is observed there is no need for females to dress like frumps and parade themselves like models for scatter cussions.
The Church has never declared that a woman must glue her body and jump through her granny’s wardrope in order to satisfy Christian modesty. Neither is there an Encyclical Letter treating of the high calling of the religious ragbag. Modern dress does not neccesarily equate to immodest dress.
There now, Torkay, you may print this off and present it to the next person you meet in the vestibule of an SSPX church handing out yashmaks along with the mantillas! Fortunately, there are very few such persons.
-
“Dress like frumps”…..you talking about me?
-
Only if you’re into fox furs, Petrus!!
-
Leopard skin and mink fur!
-
Dowden,
You have misread the article. It wasn’t editor who said Lord Gill was the first Catholic to hold the post of Senior Judge, that was the introduction to the article in the Scottish Catholic Observer. It is a common practice to give the first part of an article followed by the link to the whole article. I think if you check again you wil see that that is the case. Editor’s input begins after the link “Read more”
I completely agree about the modesty of dress which doesn’t mean looking frumpish. As Petrus says, nobody should be making a dogma out of a drama! Point well made, Petrus!
-
AH REFEREE!
Here I was reading down through the comments (lots of very good ones by the way) when I come to this on Dowden’s comments:
“We had Leo telling us recently Innocent IV was no catholic for writing about the Scottish Church.”
What was that? There’s someone else trading under the same name. No? Then I thought about the blog on the Desecration of First Holy Communions. I presume Dowden was referring to my comments posted on 29 May.
I know this is totally, completely off topic. Not of my making, though. I’m grateful to have errors in any of my comments corrected. Not so to have a nonsensical and misleading interpretation, not even a twist, put on them.
Apologies in advance for the length of this post. I didn’t expect to have to spend time on this, but just in case anyone is troubled by the thought that I had taken to accusing a 13th century Pope of being a schismatic or heretic here’s what Dowden appears to have based his comment on. This may not actually be a waste of time, as it may be worth bearing in mind whenever Dowden talks to us about the “Scottish church”. Everyone can make up their own minds.
On 26 May Dowden’s comments included the following:
“You say ‘the term “Scottish church” is meaningless for any Catholic.’ The letter ‘De graviminibus Ecclesie Scotiae emendandis’ (Prid. Kal. Jun. Pont VIII) deals at length with ‘ecclesia Scoticana’.It may be that you think that these terms ‘the Church of Scotland’ and the ‘Scottish church’ are ‘meaningless for any Catholic’ but the author of that 1251 letter is one “Innocentius Episcopus seruus seruorum Dei”. So, either the term Scottish church (‘ecclesia Scoticana’) is meaningful indeed or Pope Innocent IV was not any catholic.”
My comments on 29 May included the following:
“I think you know exactly what I was getting at, Dowden when I said “the term “Scottish church” is meaningless for any Catholic”. The third paragraph of my previous post set the context. In recent years I have become quite used to hearing the term “Irish Church”. Well, the thought that comes instantly to mind when I hear that expression is that there is another troublemaking rascal at large. The phrase reeks of a schismatic spirit. Think of the Church in Austria, Germany, Holland and the US over the last five decades if you want to get some idea of the mentality and agenda that are at play.
I suppose everything depends on what is meant by ecclesia Scoticana (Scottish church) or the Church of Scotland. Are we talking about the local presence, under Cardinal O’Brien and his fellow bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, as its visible head on earth? In other words, THE Church IN Scotland. No problem there.
If the term “Scottish church” is meant to signify something else, nobody here needs to be told that there is a rather fundamental, unavoidable problem.
Events in the 12th and 13th centuries aren’t going to explain that away I’m afraid. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Church of Christ in the twelfth century didn’t screech to a halt at the Scottish border, beyond which there was only schism and heresy. It’s not entirely irrelevant that the letter of Pope Innocent IV you mentioned was written three centuries before the Reformation. Let’s be factual here. That was quite a little game changer.Is the term ecclesia Scoticana the exception that proves the rule? How did it come about? Well a quick bit of google searching tells us that the term dates from the papal bull, Cum universi, written by Pope Celestine III in 1192. As a result the Scottish bishoprics except Galloway (there were no Scottish archbishoprics) became formally independent of York and Canterbury.
Guess what else resulted:
The ecclesia Scoticana was decreed to be a “special daughter” of Rome with no intermediary.
No one could impose an interdict in the kingdom of Scotland except the Pope or his legate.
No foreigner could be a legate in Scotland unless specifically sent by the Pope.
Disputes which arose within the realm of Scotland could not be heard outside it, unless there was a direct appeal to the Holy See.
Readers can make up their own minds, but the term “ecclesia Scoticana” suddenly has a decidedly Roman look after all that. “Special daughter” sounds rather nice don’t you think.
It just shows what a disaster the 16th century revolution was for Scotland.
Before I finish I might add a few words about Pope Innocent IV. You’ll just love the fact, Dowden that he was a distinguished canon lawyer! He certainly was a servant of the servants of God. Catholics would expect nothing less. What they mightn’t be aware of was that he excommunicated and deposed a Holy Roman Emperor. In those days Popes it seemed weren’t afraid to do a bit of Popin’.
END OF QUOTE
If anyone here takes that as a statement that Pope Innocent IV was no Catholic, then my writing skills need a serious overhaul. I leave it to the jury to decide. Come to think of it, the above might even be of some interest in a discussion with a Scottish context.
Dowden
I don’t know what your intention or humour was when writing your comment. I’ll take it as a bit of friendly provocation. Also, I probably shouldn’t be baffled by anything you say, after your remarks on the “Cardinal Brady” thread that John Henry Newman “was not that solid an intellect.”
You are familiar, though, with the term “putting words in my mouth”. No harm done, but just for future reference, I’d politely ask that you think twice. If you don’t mind I’ll be the one expressing my opinion.
Where was I. Oh yes. Lots of very good comments.
Very well put Torkay and Leprechaun at the top of the thread. And your proposed solution, Torkay, is absolutely spot on.
-
Leo,
Thank you for defusing my blood pressure quite a bit. I’d come on to the blog to respond to Dowden, but thanks to your detailed comment I can now confine my comments to the one issue of altar rails.
Dowden,
I meant to respond to your comments about altar rails on the Holy Communion blog but didn’t get round to it and now that blog has closed. Given your claim that we Catholics are “ignorant” please indulge me a little space here to answer you. You try to show that Scotland did its own thing liturgically in the 13 Century and as editor has pointed out, that may be true to a point because the Mass was not codified until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
However, altar rails probably developed from chancel screens which go back to the earliest times in the Church. For example, in 5th c. N. Africa St. Augustine speaks in a sermon about a railing or barrier in a church in Carthage. The 5th c. historian Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History described how St. Ambrose forbade the Emperor Theodosius from entering the sanctuary past the rail.
I am not sure if there was ever a Vatican decree which required the construction of altar rails, but it is surely significant that virtually every Catholic church built everywhere for centuries had altar rails. I find it hard to believe that Scotland was the exception, but you never know.
Following on from Leo’s very clear post detailing Scotland’s links with the papacy, you won’t be too surprised to learn that the Ayrshire town of Kilmacolm was mentioned in a papal bull of Pope Honorius III showing the strong Catholic influence and ties with Rome of 13th century Scotland. I seem to recall that your claim of no altar rails is because there is no mention of them in the scholarship you’ve examined but that doesn’t prove anything. If there is a clear statement that there were NO altar rails in Scots churches, that’s a different matter.
We may not be quite as clever as you, Dowden, but I think it’s a bit much to call us “ignorant” – we’re just less vexed about secondary matters, that’s all.
-
Sorry for my above off topic post. I meant to add, on topic, that I totally believe men, women and children should dress modestly at all times, expecially when attending Holy Mass, and I also agree that if anyone is NOT suitably dressed for Mass it is up to the priest to correct the person not anyone else.
As for professionals, especially law professionals, they’re unlikely to be risking their shekels in the interests of Catholic Action! It’s disappointing, I grant you, but that’s human nature. Our Lord revealed in the Beatitudes, that it is through poverty that souls can grow closer to God, whereas, it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. This is, surely, a very sobering thought for Scotland’s new Senior Judge! We should pray for him!
-
Can the interior disposition of a person, male or female, be discerned by the mode of dress?
-
Sixupman,
Got it in one. Of course we need to dress modestly at all times (not just in church) but I agree with those who point out that it is ridiculous to make, as Petrus so succinctly put it “a dogma out of a drama”. I know women who wear their skirts to the ground who are no sooner out of Mass than they are gossiping about their neighbours, so that is one “make-over” that might be effected by a good sermon on the subject for the benefit of those with a less than lively conscience.
Something else that could do with a “make-over” is the attitude of self-styled “traditional” Catholics to the wider Catholic community. I’ve met very well meaning novus ordo Catholics who tell me that they feel like second class citizens when speaking to “traditionalists” (I dislike these terms, as I’ve often said, for the reasons I’ve often given, so won’t repeat here!) and that is absolutely wrong. If we want to educate people and get them to understand why they should be attending a TLM, then the very least we ought to be when speaking to them is respectful. It is frustrating when people defend the NO and say they prefer it to the old rite, but all the more reason to be courteous and explain that, really, it’s not about what he/she/I prefer, but about what God prefers – and of that there can be no doubt, if “by their fruits shall ye know them” means anything. Having said all that – as I said to a friend of mine recently – if they stick to their guns, as she did, and insist on attending the new Mass, then we cannot label them “inferior” in any way. God alone knows the disposition of the heart and soul – and that applies to each one of the “traditional” Catholics as well. Very sobering thought.
So, if we understand “make-over” to equate with our own interior dispositions then we can see, surely, that there is need for some “conversion” on our part, if we fit into the perception of others as a “traditional” Catholic. “Make-over” – is just a “cool” way of saying that, and I’m “cool” if not “frozen” these days, especially when choosing headlines!
We have to be wise as serpents and simple as doves if we wish to bring people to the TLM. As someone has already said, of course, attending the TLM doth not a “traditionalist” make – not by a long chalk. Some attend out of an enthusiasm for the Latin language, or because they just don’t like the new Mass. I have to say that I haven’t gotten the impresson that many attend because they have achieved the heights of sanctity and seek the graces necessary to go out and convert the world! No, there’s not many of us do that…
For the record, when I’m encouraging people to attend Mass where I attend, I do point out that they’ll be interested in the dress code notice at the back of the church, since, as they’ll know, there has been some slippage in respectful dress and behaviour in church in recent years, and I remind the women that we wear something on our heads, again, like we used to do but not to worry about that for now, just come along. I then pray that some clown won’t approach her to tell her off if she isn’t wearing a scarf, hat or mantilla first time or first few times.
Common sense is all it takes, really. But if you haven’t got that much common sense then, frankly, you need a make-over!
-
For what it is worth, for the nigh on 40 years I was attending Novus Ordo Masses, I didn’t have any perception of Traditional Catholics at all. I didn’t regard them as bigots, or as “holier than thou” – I just didn’t have any views about them.
It eventually dawned on me, having made the devotion of the five first Saturdays, that something was missing in my spiritual life, and I went to an SSPX Chapel – but with no thoughts that I was stepping out of line / being disloyal to my parish / joining the schismatics or anything along those lines at all. I just wanted to acquire more of the grace that had come to me in the preceding five months and I thought I might find it there.
Mrs leprechaun and I were noticed as strangers, and were welcomed by the founding father of the faithful on our first showing, but the others had become a close-knit community as a result of being together but outside the main stream for so long, and we sensed a ghetto-like protectionism amongst them, many of whom had been with the group since birth and had never known anything else. It had nothing to do with Tradition, which we never heard being discussed at coffee after Mass, and we found the isolation a bit disturbing after the “spirit of togetherness” that we had absorbed during our years in the wilderness.
Five years later, after attending Mass faithfully every Sunday and Holy day, after volunteering for necessary works like laying carpets, renovating prayer stools, repairing dilapidated hymnbooks, sharing my small library of spiritual reading books, passing round videos of the Fatima story on free loan, making a website to try and attract more visitors, and introducing people to the Catholic Truth blog, I can now say that there are signs of us being accepted, but we never had the impression that the social reticence was due to our having come from the Novus Ordo crowd.
The women cover their heads and wear skirts, and the men generally wear ties and jackets, if not suits, and we have never heard any disparaging comments regarding dress code. We did once witness someone being serenaded after Mass with a rendition of the music on their mobile after it went off during Mass, but there was nothing nasty about it, and there were no recurrences thereafter.
I think the mainstream crowd just don’t know we are here, nor what they are missing, and I am sorry to say that I think a large percentage of them neither know nor care about what they are missing either. If anybody needs a makeover, it is them.
-
Well, leprechaun, it is very true that EVERYONE needs a “makeover” – ie. constant turning back to God, conversion of heart… call it what you will. However, there are definitely certain allegedly “traditional” Catholics who think they’re just dandy as they are. My own personal experience of some them is less than edifying, so I’m not going to publish it here, but there IS a problem – no question about it. Quite a number of people have left the Scots SSPX chapels vowing never to return, because of said problem. Glad to hear that Mrs Leprechaun and yourself have been spared the experience – at all, at all, at all!
-
Was it something I said at all?
-
leprechaun
Not at all, at all!
-
Editor,
Between you and leprechaun I have been thinking back over the years since I began attending the SSPX chapel.
And yes, quite a number of people have left the Scots SSPX chapels, vowing never to return because of said problem. Unfortunately some of them only came once, never to be seen again.
There seems to be this insular (I’m all right Jack) mentality.
Perhaps some have been criticised over their dress code, or that the female has not covered her head with a scarf.
Unwelcoming attitudes, making strangers feel they are surplus to requirement. I suppose that ‘Holier than thou attitude’.
I would say that if all those over the years had continued to attend the SSPX chapel, we would have had to have gotten a much larger church, to fit everyone in.Much has happened in the past 50 or so years and it has been discussed on other threads on how Catholics are woefully deficient in the basic tenets
of their Faith. How many see the Mass simply as a meal at a table and NOT the Bloodless Calvary upon the Altar? How many do not believe in the Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle? That is only couple of examples that I could on.Leprechaun, count you and Mrs Leprechaun fortunate of your reception at the SSPX church where you live.
Now I don’t know Lord Gill on a personal basis and cannot say one way or another as to how he used his Catholic faith in relation to his duties in the law. Hopefully he did, or, maybe that is why he is now replacing Lord Hamilton. Maybe a large percentage of Catholics would prefer to keep their Catholic faith and their life in the outside world completely separate, without any thought of the last 4 things – death, judgement, heaven, hell.
-
I haven’t been to SSPX chapels very often though I have been. I found some of the devotees there very unwelcome and cultish. It’s almost an attitude of “I’m alright Jack. Keep our heads down and await Judgement Day”. Not at all friendly or welcoming. As for dress, I don’t know WHERE to begin! I agree with people on this blog about modesty. Absolutely. Some modern fashions are awful, but this “Amish” type inclination is terrible. My teenage and young adult children love the Tridentine Liturgy and attend whenever they can. However, they prefer the FSSP or LMS Masses because of the attitude of some at the SSPX ones. Yes, I think the SSPX needs a make over to reflect modern but yet traditionally minded people. Also, as someone said earlier, some of these “traddies” weren’t around pre Vatican 2 and seem to be trying to invent what the Church was like prior to it. I was a wee bairn then but Iremember a great sense of fun and partying.
-
Speaking as someone who owes an incalculable debt to those Catholics, clergy and laity, who guarded the pearl of great price for the rest of us in the bad days or rather decades, I, like everyone here, would like nothing more than for all Catholics to fully discover and regain the glorious inheritance that was stolen from them in the 1960’s. Never was so much damage done by so few…
As for makeovers, the thought that comes to my mind is that of the words of Saint Francis of Assisi: “Preach the Gospel, use words if you have to.” We might think of the lives of the saints from the earliest days of the Church for examples of effective evangelisation. I think the point has been well made and agreed that as well as having the full Catholic truth as the essential starting point, our words and example really do help or hinder the sharing of that truth.
As well of course as personal example, we need to be able to say exactly why those of an open and searching mind really should be embracing Catholic Tradition. Be “ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you”- 1 Peter 3:15. In this day and age we really have no excuse for not being able to do so, given bookstores such as Carmel Books, Angelus Press, journals such as The Remnant and Catholic Family News and of course a lot of great websites. Just look at all the resources available at the top of the homepage here. There was a time when as someone said, freedom was kept alive through second hand bookstores and photocopiers. Not so anymore, thank God.
Terms can be dangerous, I know. Catholics are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I don’t want to be using labels, but really it’s very hard to avoid the necessity at times. The tragedy is that, contrary to fifty years ago, Catholics of goodwill and orthodox intentions don’t all look at everything in the same way, to put it very mildly.
I don’t know if this is fully relevant to the issue of “false perceptions” but there really is no getting away from the fact that traditionalist Catholics i.e. those who believe and practice exactly as Catholics did 50 years ago do not agree with other Catholics on a lot of issues. This might be peculiar to Ireland, but from personal experience I would say that the vast majority of Irish Catholics who are still willing to openly identify themselves as Catholics and live their faith actively, appear to take their religious instruction almost exclusively from EWTN, never stop talking about Medjugore, regard Pope John Paul II as Great, have some interest (at least the younger ones) in the Theology of the Body, say the luminous mysteries, and have virtually no interest in, or knowledge of, the Mass of All Time.
That’s before we start talking about, the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the separation of Church and state, Religious Liberty, the freedom of the Church versus Religious freedom, Ecumenism, Collegiality, criticism of the Conciliar Popes and comparisons with their predecessors in the 19th and 20th centuries. I’m relying on you, Torkay to fill in any omissions here.
Even when we’re on our best, grace-assisted behaviour there is a much reason for prayer.
-
Leo,
In Ireland, do the traditional Catholics involve themselves in the mainstream churches at all? I’m just thinking that one of the problems here in Scotland is that novus ordo Catholics never meet traditional ones unless they go to the traditional chapels. It’s created a kind of ghetto mentality among traditionalists, I think. How are we to correct the errors you list if we never meet ordinary Catholics from the parishes? I ask the question although I’m not sure of how to go about such intermingling. Is it the same in Ireland?
-
That’s a very good question, Margaret Mary. One of the things I dislike most from so-called “Traditionalists” is the “I’m having nothing more to do with the Novus Ordo Catholics. They can keep their new religion.” I hate it. It’s not a Catholic attitude at all. In fact, I think it borders on “Extra SSPX nulla salus”. Monstrous!
So, how can we be “leaven”? I don’t know the answer. I try to float around my parish as much as possible, going to Confession, Benediction, Rosary, Holy Hour, Stations of the Cross (but never the New Mass). That way I get talking to people who usually ask , “Oh where have you been?” Perfect opportunity to tell them! I don’t know if this does any good – I may never know. I can only hope.
-
Margaret Mary
The problem in the mainstream parishes is one for the hierarchy and clergy to sort out. They are the ones who caused so much indifference and ignorance in the faithful in respect to the faith, and they are the ones who are responsible for forcing Traditional Catholics to seek refuge in the SSPX.
If some in the SSPX have a ghetto mentality, it is only because they were herded into a spiritual ghetto by a ruthless liberal dictatorship.
These are not bitter words but rather words of realism. It is almost useless to attempt to make a modern Catholic understand about the Traditional Catholic Faith. So many decades of poisonous doctrines and practices have left them numb to what is true and what is false.
That having been said, there are many well intentioned souls in the mainstream parishes and a growing number amongst the prelates and clergy. This augurs well for the future if the SSPX gets that personal prelature. They will be won back by degrees over time by a restored priesthood. Our duty is to give good example and to help those with whom we may come in contact (not actively mixing in the parish churches).
I should also say that while I have witnessed such uncharitable behaviour at SSPX churches as previously described, it is, thankfully, not an everyday event. Most SSPX churches around the world don’t have any such problems, they just seem to occur in a certain few hotspots, such as in parts of Britain or in Idaho in the U.S. Still, I would rather suffer a few rude comments from a misguided soul at an SSPX church than be cuddled to death by someone who thinks nothing of handling the Blessed Sacrament.
This brings to mind the words of an Irish priest, who responded to the accusation that the Church is full of hypocrits with “yes, and there’s always room for one more.”
-
Having read Petrus’ post I should state that my “not actively mixing in the parish churches” was a reference to attending the New Mass.
Obviously, traditional devotions in modern parishes is a different matter. Our duty is to avoid error, not sound devotions.
-
Athanasius,
I generally agree with a lot of what you say. But I must say that having a presence round about local parishes has its advantages. I got talking to a few women once about Ecumenism and it was the first time they had heard that it had been condemned prior to Vatican II. I also passed on the official teaching of Church regarding Extraordinary Ministers to one of these EMs and it was the first time she had read the material.
Now, as I said earlier, I don’t know if that will do any good, but I hope those Catholics are now in a better place than they were before. It’s also an opportunity to give out some Catholic Truth newsletters!
I’m not advocating for one minute active participation in crazy events in local parishes. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going along to Exposition, Benediction etc. In fact, it can be advantageous.
Regarding this business of uncharitable behaviour in SSPX chapels, I can say that I have only had one mild experience. I was told off on my first visit to the SSPX Church in Glasgow for blocking the tea queue! I agree completely with you, Athanasius, I’d rather be chastised by a thirsty Traditionalist than be harangued by a Modernist for adhering to the Catholic Faith.
-
Athanasius,
I have just noticed your most recent post. I couldn’t agree more.
-
“I would rather suffer a few rude comments from a misguided soul at an SSPX church than be cuddled to death by someone who thinks nothing of handling the Blessed Sacrament.” That’s hilarious, Athanasius! I agree.
Petrus,
I think you show an excellent attitude in the way your go to your parish when possible and act in an apostolic spirit. If every traditional Catholic did that, it would be amazingly effective. I’ve never heard anyone else say they do those things, so you have impressed me a great deal. You show true charity towards those in the mainstream, and God will reward you for it.
-
Margaret Mary,
Thanks for your kind words. I must stress, however, that the one or two examples I have provided have been spread out over the course of 3 and a half years. Please don’t get the wrong impression that I’m out there every week converting the Modernists. Most of the time, I’m in there for something else (like newspapers, picking up the bulletin etc) and can’t quite keep my mouth shut when I speak to people!
-
Great Catherine III,
There seem to be a couple of threads running inside the one with the Lord President long forgotten by both. But your comments deserve some consideration.
With our respective headquarters talking “reconciliation based on ancient common traditions …, centuries of estrangement between Anglicans and Catholics replaced by co-operation”, I am hardly claiming Roman-Catholics are “ignorant”. The post merely pointed to some striking lapses into historical ignorance in some other posts and in the very premise of this thread, “first catholic Lord President”. It turns out the editor (who has reason to know better) took SCO at face value and didn’t notice their historical howler before passing it on for comment.
The editor had apparently asked some priests if they’ve ever heard tell of instructions to priests not to lift the elements beyond their chests and they announced it was “news to them”. You can take that two ways: either as a put down to absurd heretic error or that, if it was indeed news to them that “nullus eleuet”, then that shows ignorance of Innocent III’s discussion. The common factor is that the ignorance is historical: history is used (not ignored) but used carelessly. I am not trying to “show” anything, just trying to see what the true situation was.
The earlier discussion gave the evidence you ask about but, if you missed it, again there is no archaeological evidence for rails but some for screens: http://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/corpusofscottishchurches/index.php. The scholarly reconstruction is http://imagedatabase.st-andrews.ac.uk/images/viewimage.php?id=ixrntjQK-UU. The chancel screens survive as Anglican roods and Orthodox iconostasis but have generally been destroyed in Roman-Catholic churches and replaced by rails. Given that the clear evidence is for only one annual communion involving large numbers at one time, various Eucharistic ministers and large quantities of wine for the people, the absence of rails would square with the absence of any regular need for them, given screens functioned to separate zones. I don’t see much unusual: it is standard Orthodox procedure in Russia and (as anyone calling herself Екатери́на III Великая must know) and they stick to tradition.
It’s not a question of traditional Scotland doing its own peculiar thing, however. All medieval dioceses in all countries did it, and Aberdeen and St Andrews may have done things differently in liturgy if not architecture. It is significant, in this sort of blog especially, that the Roman-Catholic church subsequently (if unwittingly) changed universal liturgical tradition and subsequently destroyed most of Continental Europe’s architectural screens. But that tells us only that some Anglicans and the Orthodox stuck to tradition better than the new order of 1570 – but we sort of knew that anyway. That reconstruction drawing is pretty accurate way to visualize the old order.
Nobody is going to be surprised by Kilmalcolm and Honorius. Those who are interested in law can follow a distinguished Lord President’s lead in seeing that Dec. Greg. IX, II.xxviii.45, is Honorius III’s court ruling in Monk E. v Sir N., a Galloway case which got into the law reports as the precedent for expenses in appellate proceedings (Dec. Greg. IX, II.xxviii.45). There must be upwards of 10,000 papal documents for Scotland, financial accounts, appointments and matrimonial proceedings (the Lord President printed some of those). I am not so sure they show “strong Catholic influence and ties with Rome” since they are a pretty grim catalogue of financial interaction, litigation and a chaotic system of appointments. When historians try to explain why the reformation went so much further in Scotland than England and why the old structures crumbled so much more completely, the usual answer is that the papacy had diverted 90% of parish revenues away from parish ministers as against only 37% for England.
A couple of weeks in the Vatican Archives is enough to establish the nature of the medieval ties with Rome (and Avignon) and it is not an inspiring chronicle. If you think about it, there is no way a pope knew the first blind thing about Monk E. and Sir N., so it all just ended up putting money into the hands of a vast tribe of lawyers. The popes did more to scupper their ship in Scotland than extremists ever did.
I suppose I can see why modern Roman-Catholics are not so keen to delve into Scottish medieval History but a grasp of tradition can do no harm even in a Lord President. It doesn’t have to be extreme.
-
Dowden,
I suspect that editor would expect anyone who wants to point out any perceived error in the SCO article would menion that on the blog. It’s the SCO article that is up for discussion, isn’t it.
I’m not really sure what your point is. For one thing, for all your claimed historical knowledge you insist on calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church” when this was pointed out to you a while back as being an error. It is not how the Church describes herself, and none of the examples you posted from secondary bodies, even if they are posted on the Vatican website, changes that fact. The only Roman Catholic Church is in Rome – so I’m puzzled that you persist in using that label which informed Catholics find offensive. I know there are ignorant Catholics who also use it – and those ecumenical documents which you highlighted on the Vatican website count among the ignorant! We find it offensive here, yet you continue to use it and I wonder why, especially since you made great play of being offended when one of the bloggers referred to Rowan Williams as the “Archlayman” of Canterbury.
The whole argument about altar rails in Scotland is really irrelevant. You ignored the evidence I gave from the first centuries of the Church that altar rails were in use, so it is pointless going on about it. The key fact that you have to face, with respect, is that there is only one Church established by Jesus, and that is the Catholic Church – even if you insist on sticking “Roman” in front of it! Only within the Catholic Church is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord really and truly present in Holy Communion, which is why there is a very very long tradition of kneeling to receive Him into our souls, with or without altar rails!
-
There is another aspect to this situation, and that is the marked difference I’ve noticed between SSPX parishioners and “mainstream” traditionalists – i.e. those who attend what used to be called the “indult” Mass.
My experience with SSPX parishioners (though limited to one parish, and one visit to your chapel in Glasgow) (where I was treated to Editor’s singing) is that they are full of life, and joy, and good humor – and VERY knowledgeable about the Faith.
The other group, however, I’ve experienced as a somber, joyless bunch, with a bunker mentality, and not very welcoming at all. In fact, when I left the indult parish to start attending our SSPX parish, not a single person from the choir (of which I was a member) called me to ask where I was.
(Maybe it was my breath….I always wondered why they kept asking me to sing tenor…ten or eleven miles away…)
leprechaun
On the issue of an “in-crowd” at SSPX chapels, our parish has that same group, who have been in the trenches from the beginning of the crisis, heard Mass in basements, then in an old crumbling church, and finally, Deo Gratias, in our new church.
I’ve found that they’ve accepted me for the same reason that your group accepted you – I started volunteering for things. Our Prior, having discovered, whilst giving me spiritual direction, that I had no social life, also connected me with two of the more sociable families in the Church, one of which was one of the founders.
So I suppose my point is, membership in a parish is much more than just attending Mass faithfully. You have to give people the opportunity to get to know you.
-
Dowden
“When historians try to explain why the reformation went so much further in Scotland than England and why the old structures crumbled so much more completely, the usual answer is that the papacy had diverted 90% of parish revenues away from parish ministers as against only 37% for England.”
Actually, I think Cromwell had something to do with it!
“A couple of weeks in the Vatican Archives is enough to establish the nature of the medieval ties with Rome (and Avignon) and it is not an inspiring chronicle.”
Hardly surprising given that Britain was then in the process of apostatising under Horny Henry.
“…I suppose I can see why modern Roman-Catholics are not so keen to delve into Scottish medieval History…”
Some of us, however, have had the odd delve into the detail of Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (declaring Anglican Orders null and void). That is a far more relevant study for everyone today. I suggest you study it objectively, Dowden.
-
Margaret Mary and Petrus
I think you’ve raised a very important issue, about contact with “novus ordo” Catholics.
Athanasius has already expressed things very well, as far as I’m concerned.
I mentioned on another thread that all told there might be 10 Traditional Latin Masses in Ireland every day. On Sundays, out of a population of 4.5m the numbers attending might be barely into four figures. That’s a rough outline of the size of the task. We haven’t really got off the beaches yet.
From my experience, there isn’t any ghetto mentality on the part of the clergy and laity who adhere to the Latin Mass, whether with the Society or with the diocesan Masses. Quite the opposite. In fact all I can think of is people trying to persuade newcomers to come more often.
My guess is that “ordinary” parish clergy and laity would just about mix with anybody of any religion whatsoever before they would be seen with the Society’s priests or laity. Well, it’s their loss.
Realistically contact with “novus ordo” Catholics is going to occur elsewhere than in Church; in the course of pro-life activity, for example, or just ordinary daily life. Very sad to say, going to Eucharistic Adoration in one’s local parish in Ireland isn’t going produce much contact. You won’t find many people there. What I find strange is that many Mass goers, good people, don’t seem a bit interested in finding out about what they are missing. This is going to be a long battle. If they would even argue, the opportunity of some sort of teaching moment would arise. Gospel Masses, Family Tree Masses, Healing Masses and Elation Ministeries seem to be what people want now. What about what God wants, says I.
I think if Summorum Pontificum was widely and properly implemented there would be a Traditional Latin Mass within a half an hour’s drive of every Catholic. Or better still, there would be a Tridentine Mass in every parish every Sunday. That’s what SHOULD be happening. Priests would benefit I’m sure. There might well be a revival of traditional devotions. That way I think people would be introduced to Catholic Tradition, overcome their ignorance about the Society, read the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society’s literature, and have no qualms about attending Mass at their nearest chapel. I’m talking from experience here.
-
Dowden,
I had no reason to be interested in the identity of Scotland’s first Senior Judge, therefore I did not KNOW that the SCO got it wrong (if, in fact, they did). I have no idea, either, who was Scotland’s first medical doctor or surgeon. Why would I? Re. the SCO “mistake” (if mistake it is) that is a shorcoming in the efficiency of their researchers, not one of my (many) shortcomings. I’m not remotely interested in who holds the apparently grand title of Scotland’s first senior judge – my interest is in the fact that Brian Gill now holds that job and that I have yet to meet a Catholic who has even heard of him, beyond a tiny group of people in the Scottish equivalent of the Latin Mass Society, Una Voce. Now, that might be seen a good thing, but for the fact that there are plenty of Catholics (not) gracing the several prisons we boast in Scotland. I know, Dowden, that your sense of humour will appreciate that one! Had I wanted to show off my superior knowledge, certainly I could have Googled “Who was Scotland’s first senior judge” but I’m really not that bothered about fame and fortune. I could say more about Brian Gill’s deliberate decision to keep a low profile, but there’s no real point. Let’s leave him to it and reflect, if we’ve not already exhausted the subject, on this temptation of people in the public eye to leave their Catholicism at the doorstep when they leave home in the morning. Or, like the majority of celebrities we read about and see on our TV screens being interviewed about what is important to them in life, deny the Faith openly, altogether. What gets into them? Were they always so ignorant or is this a pose adopted for the purposes of popularity and preferment?
I think others have answered you adequately re the altar rails etc. As KTG has said, I’m not sure what your point is, either, since whether or not Scottish churches had altar rails doesn’t, one jot, affect the status of the Catholic Church as the one ark of salvation for all. Personally, I’ve never visited a single pre-reformation church that didn’t have altar rails, but then maybe I’m thinking of England where I lived for many years, not Scotland. Who knows? Does it matter? Significantly, until they did away with kneeling and receiving on the tongue in my home town of Glasgow, just to take a personal example, belief in the Real Presence was very strong, as the many Eucharistic devotions and processions testify. Not now, where as we learned on the First Comunions thread recently, the new first Communications were texting each other during Mass.
The fact is that we cannot possibly know of every aberration or dispensation in disciplinary practices prior to the Reformation. So, don’t go Googling for secondary information any longer, Dowden. I took a look at your links above – and two or three dioceses in Scotland do not a “tradition” make.
Torkay,
The “SSPX parishioners” with whom you mixed when you visited here were no such thing, I’m afraid. They were other people who, like yourself, had travelled long distances, from England and other parts of Scotland, to attend the conference at which you kindly spoke for us. Certainly you would have met one or two of the locals who attended the conference and support us but we made sure you were protected as necessary!
Leo,
I fully agree about Summorum Pontificum. We should be supporting the few (a couple only in Glasgow) priests who have responded to SP, as suggested by Bishop Fellay. You are so right to say that if SP were properly implemented more people would be drawn to the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre etc. Then it would be a case of, no question about it, “roll on the restoreation!”
-
I know this is a little off topic (again!), but Fr. Rostand, the Superior of the SSPX in the U.S., is asking people to sign up to the U.S. SSPX website in order that they may receive regular and accurate updates of events, especially regarding the SSPX/Rome talks.
I have noticed that the SSPX UK website doesn’t do regular updates, so the link below is very handy for those who want to be kept informed. It is also 100% faithful to Bishop Fellay and the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Here’s the link, it only takes a few minutes to register and confirm:
-
Many thanks for that link, Athanasius. I’ve signed up!
-
“What I find strange is that many Mass goers, good people, don’t seem a bit interested in finding out about what they are missing.”
Actually, what Leo says isn’t really strange at all – the vast majority of Catholics really don’t care much about their religion, except perhaps when dire circumstances afflict them. or when Christmas and Easter roll around. The battle has to be fought by those who do care, and the rest will go along with the results, as they have always done.
-
I will sign up asap. The uk website is mince!
-
I agree, Petrus. The (Y)UK website is mince, and not even steak mince!! It gets updated every leap year, I think.
-
Halal Asda Smart Price!
-
“What I find strange is that many Mass goers, good people, don’t seem a bit interested in finding out about what they are missing.”
Torkay
I should have expressed myself better in the above words. I agree completely that “the vast majority of Catholics don’t care much about their religion”.The people that I was thinking should be interested in Tradition or the Mass of All Time are those who go to Mass every Sunday and indeed quite a bit more often, as well as those who have Rosary beads and use them. “Mass goers” and “good people” wasn’t sufficient explanation on my part.
I think I could say that those categories also include Catholics who spend several hours a day looking at EWTN, who are in my opinion very misguided, to say the least, when it comes to Medjugore, and cannot even countenance anyone criticizing the canonization process of Pope John Paul II. That’s quite a combination, but sad to say, very common. I think we can be assured of these peoples’ good faith, but they are frighteningly far away from the right path.
Getting them onto the right path is going to be quite a task. The help of Our Mother and the Holy Ghost are certainly needed.
-
Leo,
The answer lies in the writings of the Prophet Jeremiah, 5:31 (or thereabouts), where he points out that when the people are misled by the priests into a less demanding, easier life, the people love it!
That’s why the powers that be, the popes, bishops and priests, will have more to answer for than the ordinary Catholic faithful.
People mistakenly interpret the Gospel warning that it were better a millstone be tied around the necks of those who lead astray “one of these little ones who believe in Me” as applying only or primarily to paedophiles but it applies even more to those who lead souls astray by false doctrine and morals.
Having said that, each individual will also have to account for his/her lack of scrutiny, failure to keep ourselves educated in the Faith.
To those who failed to register for the Catholic Truth blog then – be warned!
-
Leo
I see I have Catherine the Great, Athanasius and Editor all on by tail but you were first.
I don’t think anyone questions the orthodoxy (if not Orthodoxy) of any of the (somewhat numerous) Latin (or Greek) Fathers blogging here. It was just a passing recollection of something you had said. This is way off thread but since I am one of the few even to mention a Lord President I am not the worst offender.
Sorry, Leo, I wouldn’t believe everything you read in Wikipedia and you really did draw the short straw with that article: well worth an edit if anyone can be bothered. The term “special daughter” does not date from Cum Universi in 1192. And, to make your happiness complete, 1192 is not even certainly the date of Cum Universi – it may be 1189. I thought it was better to let your earlier comments pass by in silence since it was all obviously a bad dose of the Wikiwoops, but since you mention it all again, here goes.
The normal chain of command is Patriarch-Metropolitan-Bishop, bog standard still among the Russian Orthodox. Britain had two metropolitans, York for the north, Canterbury for the south (it took four archbishops to try to keep order among the Irish). York bickered with Canterbury, so the Scots chanced their arm.
The fun and games actually started with Paschal II, Noscat dilectio. The merry tale continued through Calixtus II, Honorius II, Innocent II and Eugenius III with nobody taking a blind bit of notice of them, since with their kings behind them, nobody could actually touch the Scottish bishops.
The bull “Super Anxietatibus” (30 July, 1176) got things moving in a new direction, the natural (and canonical) outcome of which would have been a Scottish metropolitan.
The “special daughter” business was the bright idea of an aggressive bishop of Glasgow, Jocelyn (you may have heard of him as the literary patron who commissioned the important “Lives” of Saints Patrick, Helen and Kenitgern). His particular horror was that Glasgow would end up subordinate to St Andrews. To avoid an east-coast fate worse than death, he borrowed the legal concept of an exempt, special, abbey, and applied it to the diocese of Glasgow.
So after some adept string-pulling, Glasgow got made “Specialem nullo mediante Romane ecclesia filiam” in 1189. That was Glasgow, not Scotland. Jocelyn got nervous when he spotted that the bull might die with the pope, so got a “perpetual” version issued for all the Scottish bishops except Galloway, which gave us Cum Universi in 1189 (or 1192).
That, thanks to a cunning Glaswegian, stymied St Andrew’s hopes of a pallium for three centuries, and, incidentally, ruined good canonical government. Not quite the Wiki story.
You are are right, it did give “ecclesia Scoticana” a decidedly Roman look. That was, precisely, what the canon lawyers were worried about. There were no other exempt sees in the western patriarchate, outside Italy itself, and it was, obviously, going to cause anarchy in a whole province – since communications would take months. But the folks who thought “special daughter” sounded rather nice were not just that bolshie Glaswegian (“he had a privilege sent to him by the supreme pontiff so that he would be subject to no bishop but should rather be called the vicar and chaplain of the lord pope”).
Unfortunately, the Roman lawyers and the Roman finance boys spotted a golden opportunity to fairly coin it in. Good old August Theiner, working in the Vatican archives, picked up on it all years ago (even before Gasquet or visting students doing their two-week training stints) because the Scottish financial entries, supplications and appointment fees in the Archives were way out of proportion to bigger countries.
The upshot of this grossly irresponsible – and fundamentally uncanonical – special arrangement took years to mature. Your Innocent IV gave it a nasty twist when it came to jobs, firstly by allowing one priest to hold the revenues of more than one parish at the same time and then by deciding this would be true for “especially those of noble birth”. The Cambridge canon lawyer, F.W. Maitland called Innocent “the greatest lawyer that ever sat on the chair of St Peter” but I am not quite sure the remark was ever intended as a complement (substitute any other two-syllable word for “lawyer” and you get the picture).
The whole arrangement created one of the least well-governed and most corrupt churches in the western church by the time it staggered, unreformed, into the sixteenth century and expired ignominiously in a morass of Presbyterianism. But readers can make up their own minds what a disaster the twelfth century revolution was for Scotland. As you might agree, Leo, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
But if the purpose of the blog is truth, the documents are key to understanding. Come to think of it that was that Lord President’s idea in delving into all this in the first place. Always a good idea to be educated in old documents in a blog.
-
Dowden,
For one thing, Leo is Irish and could hardly be expected to know every detail of Scottish Church history. Who does? (Well, apart from your goodself. )
I think what you have tried to convey above is the following – I’m a simple gal, simple English does me fine and I guess Leo is the same: I’m pretty sure all Leo wanted to point out is that the Church in Scotland was given the title “Special Daughter of Rome” by a pre-Reformation pontiff – and he is right. Anyway, for the record, here goes… (Hastily put together so if it is not perfect, too bad. Taken from the first non-Wikipedia sources I came across!)
“In 1188 Clement III. declared ” the Church of Scotland to be the daughter of Rome by special grace, and immediately subject to her; that the Pope alone, or his legate d latere, should have power to pronounce sentence of interdiction or excommunication against Scotland; and that none should be capable of exercising the office of legate except a Scottish subject, or one specially deputed by the apostolic see out of the sacred college.” He further declared, ” That no appeal concerning benefices should lie out of Scotland, unless to the court of Rome.” Annals of Scotland, David Dalrymple Page 154
“In 1192,Pope Celestine III in the bull ‘Cum Universi’ declared that all the Scottish sees except Galloway were collectively the ‘special daughter’ of the Roman church; and this bull was reissued by Popes Innocent III and Honorius III.” (I can’t recall source but it’s genuine, trust me. Don’t believe those folk who say “you can’t trust people like her, trust me.)
Yes, Dowden, it’s always a good idea to be educated in old documents in a blog, as long as you don’t take those old documents out of context and forget about other old documents. Like the one that says: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I wil build my Church…”
-
EXACTLY, Editor! Or what about the “old document” Apostolicae Curae, Promulgated on September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII? I’m particulary familiar with Paragraph 36:
“Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. “
-
Editor
Thanks for the words of wisdom at 5.27pm.
That’s a great quote from the Prophet Jeremiah. How about Osee 4:6. Lack of knowledge is evidently not just a modern scourge.
Well Catholic Truth is certainly rectifying that around here. Excuses for a lot of us are dwindling. Long may that continue.
Thanks also for the latest post. Informative, to the point, and succinct as usual. Simple English is good by me.
How could anyone not trust you, Editor. The mind boggles.
Dowden
I have to say I find your post quite reassuring.
I’m glad that you gave more than a bit of consideration to my earlier comments. I’m glad that in a lengthy post you expressed no disagreement with the fact that up until the Reformation, the Church in Scotland was very clearly part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, in full ecclesiastical union with the successor of Peter. In the words of Saint Ambrose: “from (the chair of Peter) the rights of the venerable communion are extended to all” – Epistle 11 ad imperatores.
When Cum universi was written, I’m sure the Scots still took seriously the words of Saint Cyprian: “He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church.”- De Unitate Ecclesiae.
I’m glad that you raised no doubts or objections about the intentions and effects of Cum universi which clearly resulted in the Church in Scotland being closely tied to Rome.
On the other hand, I am surprised that apart from a less than confident sounding expression of doubt about one fact in its entry for Cum universi, you didn’t choose to challenge any of the citations in Wikipedia. I’m also surprised you didn’t mention any citations of you own. I’m at a loss to understand your statement, “not quite the Wiki story”.
Getting to the heart of the matter here, Dowden, it appears that the only point you make in your post which is related to anything in my previous comments is the question of the year in which Cum universi was issued.
You wrote:
“And, to make your happiness complete, 1192 is not even certainly the date of Cum Universi – it may be 1189”.
And that’s it, Dowden. That is your only challenge. And with no evidence whatsoever for your “may be”. None. The rest of your post consists largely of opinion and irrelevancies.
In reading your comments, Dowden I was struck by your opinion that Cum universi was “going to cause anarchy in a whole province – since communications would take months.” How does that alleged anarchy reconcile with you statement two and three sentences later that “the Roman finance boys spotted a golden opportunity to fairly coin it in” and “Scottish financial entries, supplications and appointment fees in the (Vatican) Archives were way out of proportion to bigger countries”?
You also raised the question of “what a disaster the twelfth century revolution was for Scotland”. I take it that this is in reaction to my contention that the 16th century was when Scotland’s disaster took place.
What 12th century revolution was that?
All I’ll say is that in the 12th century the Catholic Bishops and priests of Scotland still passed on the perennial, unchanging dogma of the Real Presence to their flocks. Presumably they were all familiar with the words of Saint Augustine of Hippo: “In the Mass the Blood of Christ flows anew for sinners”.
12th century Catholics in Scotland believed like Saint John Chrysostom that “the Mass has just the same value as Calvary” and that “when Mass is being celebrated, the Sanctuary is filled with countless Angels, who adore the Divine Victim immolated on the altar.”
They held the same faith as Saint Ignatius of Antioch when he wrote to the Romans in 106 A.D.: “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of God”.
I’ve warned you already on this thread about you language, Dowden. The following statement of yours looks just a little bit misleading, shall we say
:
“The term “special daughter” does not date from Cum Universi in 1192.”Totally irrelevant. Nothing in my comments says it does. Remember also that I said “ecclesia Scoticana”, not Glasgow. The fact that Glasgow was given the title in 1189 is neither here nor there in this discussion.
You yourself wrote that:
Jocelyn (“that bolshie Glaswegian”) also “got a “perpetual” version issued for all the Scottish bishops except Galloway, which gave us Cum Universi in 1189 (or 1192)”.
Let me end by giving you a bit a assurance, Dowden. Trust what Editor told you:
“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…”
-
Oops. Clarification required. Big time. The above did not end well. What was I at?
I don’t want to give you too much assurance, Dowden. I better remove any suspicion of more than one heresy on my part, as well.
I’m not suggesting Editor is calling you Peter while quoting Our Lord, just in case anyone thought.
Now where’s the duster?
-
Leo – splendid!
I’m off to Mass now – to pray for our beloved Dowden!
-
Catherine the Great,
Well of topic but just a reply. Best I can do is Jacobite tales. Henry Benedict of York had a Scottish great-grandfather who died a martyr, a grandfather who turned tail and fled at the Boyne, a father who gave up without a fight and a brother who drank himself to death. Now while that is the classic reminder to Scottish ‘piskie families not to “turn” coat for cotta, the boy ended up entitled to claim to be “Henry IX&I”. That did not mean that the British had to call him by his chosen title. Nor for that matter did the pope – who recognized George III. Henry, to his dying day, signed “Henry R”.
The problem is it is not a matter of giving or taking offence. It is legal title. In this jurisdiction, “Roman Catholic” is the legal name. We seldom, in this ecumenical age, press the point but, legally speaking, the only authentic catholic jurisdiction presently surviving in the UK is the Church of England. The bishop of Rome, in law, “hath no jurisdiction”. While almost all legal restrictions have been removed (the crown and the succession apart), Roman-Catholic bishops respect Anglican titles (so an archbishop of “Westminster” not “Canterbury” or “London”). Mgr Robson, the latest Scottish auxiliary bishop, due to be consecrated soon, announced himself as a “Roman Catholic”, as quoted on numerous press items and on another thread here. I suppose you must count Stephen Robson as among the well-informed and not those ignorant of correct usage.
Like “Henry R”, we can all call ourselves what we like in private matters but legal title deserves proper respect. Dr Robson has no difficulty with that and Anglicans (unlike some others) avoid the opprobrious names once used.
And, although Petrus and Anthanasius are with you on this one, I am at a bit of a loss as to quite what “Apostolicae Curae”, “Saepius Officio”, Gregory Dix or Basil Hume has to do with little old, lay, me. The Roman-Catholic church is fully entitled to decide who is in Roman-Catholic orders, no one disputes that – although as a matter of fact the details have changed since Leo XIII’s time, historical knowledge is more accurate and the “Dutch Touch” has now come in to it all.
The pope, back to the Jacobite tale, was entitled, nevertheless, to decide that young Henry Benedict of York deserved to be a cardinal at the ripe old age of 22. Since he seemed to do a good job as a cardinal the pope was entitled to then make Henry a priest and, at 33, an archbishop. Anglicans might raise a sceptical eye at Rome’s social snobbery but within their own jurisdictions, appointments are Rome’s prerogative.
The problem is, whatever it is, clerical not lay. Rome has its procedure, recently revised, for incoming vicars and their good lady wives, as do the Anglicans for Roman-Catholic priests and (not uncommonly) their new or intended wives coming the other way. It really is no big deal. Which sort of leaves Anthanasius on Cromwell to another day.
-
Leo and Editor
(For the rest, I was asked for references rather than Wiki, I’m answering: this is a complete tangent to the thread).
[The thing I would say in passing is that three of the pieces mentioned are from Innes Review, the Journal of Scottish Catholic History, including the absolutely key paper by Barrell. It is all available - but behind a pay-wall: it costs USD 18 to access one single paper for only 48 hours. The money is not going to the authors (they write for free for the pure love of scholarship) so if anyone has any influence with the Scottish Catholic Historical Association to get this iniquitous, Edinburgh University, scam put a stop to, please use it. There is no good reason (greed apart) for a monopoly to prevent people accessing information the writers provided free-of-charge. SCHA should be ashamed of itself for allowing the scam.]
I cannot explain why the Wiki text is so bad (maybe the writers are on the wrong side of the SCHA pay-wall) or why it tells only a small part of the Honorius III story or indeed why it misunderstands the previous history so badly. Wikipedia is only as good as the volunteer contributors. An accurate picture can be constructed from the following. Wiki is way off beam on this one.
To sort it out needs different sources:
The people involved are in J. Dowden, Bishops of Scotland (Glasgow, 1912).
The key papal texts are edited by W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, 1867-71).
Dr Dowden was TCD and Dr Stubbs was Oxford, so the basic work is reliable and impartial. They were both Anglican bishops so they understood the theological as well as historical issues. Great thing the Oxford Movement.
Scottish bulls are printed, from England in W. Holtzmann, “Papsturkunden in England” (Berlin, 1933-56) or, elsewhere, in R. Somerville “Scotia Pontifica: Papal letters to Scotland before the Pontificate of Innocent III” (Oxford, 1982).
The details for the Glasgow strand of the tale are N.F. Shead, “The Origins of the medieval diocese of Glasgow” Scottish Historical Review, 48 (1969) 220-5” and for Galloway, R.D. Oram “In obedience and reverence: Whithorn and York”, Innes Review, 42 (1991), 89-90The key interpretation of the history we are talking about is Dauvit Broun, “Scottish independence and the idea of Britain: from the Picts to Alexander II” (Edinburgh University Press, 2007), especially pages 130-8.
The definitive modern textual study is A.D.M. Barrell “The Background to Cum Universi: Scoto-Papal relations, 1159-1192”, Innes Review, 46 (1995), 116-38.
The canonical norms for exempt diocese (there were no other exempt provinces apart from Scotland) are from the examples of Florence and Fiesole: R.C. Trexler, Studi e Testi, 268 (Vatican, 1971) which helps interpret the Scottish statutes. There are discussions of the practical details of how it all worked out in “Skinned to the bone: Durham evidence for taxations of the church in Scotland, 1254-1366”, Innes Review, 50, 1999 and “Papal Representatives in Scotland: Legates, Nuncios, and Judges-Delegate, 1125-1286” , Stair Society, 45, 1997.
If anyone is interested (a big if) that is where it comes from – Wiki knows a few of the pieces but does not see how to connect them. Now, that is not saying anything about how it worked in Scotland – Leo has given a version – and it has little to do with the thread except, perhaps, that scholarly Lord Presidents give a good example, needing no make-over.
The biddings on this side were done already, Editor, when my turn came – one very curious congregation afterwards asking why on earth TLM / SSPX folks were getting a hard time from our separated brethern. We live and learn.
-
Dowden, it would appear, still subscribes to the error that there are multiple churches which Christians can simply choose to be part of, depending on their liturgical taste or theological mindset. This is spiritual madness, of course.
Can truth and error co-exist? Can we both believe different things and both be right? Of course not.
There is only one Truth, one religion and One Church – the Catholic Church. So, it’s not that the Catholic Church claim that Anglican “priests” aren’t Catholic priests – they aren’t priests at all! There is only one ministerial priesthood. There is only one Church.
-
I think that we should stop responding to Dowden’s ridiculous ramblings, which are masked by an arrogant, supposed academia. I agree with what Torkay said earlier; he enjoys being the Protestant bull in the Catholic china shop. We are going round in circles.
Dowden,
Almighty God has brought you to this blog and I urge you, please, do not waste this opportunity. Forget all the nonsense you’ve read in order to satisfy a lust for being the only true academic in town. The truths of the Faith do not require any form of academic award.
As I said, Dowden, you have been led to this blog in order to save your soul. Don’t waste the opportunity by clinging to your Protestant heresies!
-
Petrus
I agree with you that Dowden is of the “pan-Christian” mindset, so I am publishing below a relevant few paragraphs from Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, which I have also posted on the Orthodox thread. It answers him better than we could.
“…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognise and obey the authority and supremancy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancesters of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the Reformers obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Their children, alas! have left the home of their fathers; but that house did not therefore fall to the ground and perish forever, for it was supported by God. Let them, then, return to their Father, who, forgetting the insults in the past heaped upon the Apostolic See, will accord them a most loving welcome. If, as they constantly say, they long to be united with Us and Ours,, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful.” Let them heed the words of Lactantius: The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of faith, this the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, and these will be lost forever unless their interests be carefully and assiduously kept in mind.
I advise anyone who has time to read the entire Encylcical Here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
-
Dowden says “the only authentic catholic jurisdiction presently surviving in the UK is the Church of England.” This guy should be on the telly! The Church of England is NOT a Catholic Church, in fact, lets be honest, it’s just a Mickey Mouse Church. It’s Scottish equivalent, the Scottish Episcopal Church makes just as daft statements like claiming that it can trace it’s origins back to the foundation of Christianity in Scotland despite the fact that it was founded at the reformation. In last night Edinburgh Evening News there was an article about a Corpus Christi procession which is to take place this evening through the street of Tollcross. I had hoped it was the Sacred Heart Church but no, it’s St. Michael and All Saints Episcopal Church. They are claiming it could be the first Corpus Christi procession in Edinburgh since the reformation – another stupid claim- as they were a regular thing before Vatican II and I remember one in the 1980s. So tonight we will witness a layman dressed in fancy dress carry an un-consecrated host through the streets of Tollcross, the Fringe has come early this year. I just hope nobody in this predominately Catholic area is daft enough to watch it. To get back to the original topic, I do think some Traditionalists can go over the score regarding dress etc. Thankfully in Edinburgh we have not had too much of a problem. Most people are very welcoming and try to make strangers feel at home. A few weeks ago we had visitors from England. One of them was speaking to one of our members how well attended the chapel was but commented on the fact that some of the ladies had trousers on. Our parishioner said that trousers on women was not an issue in Scotland, to which the visitor replied that in the South of England it was an issue and that something would be said to any lady wearing them. Our parishioner asked the visitor how many attended her chapel to which replied “oh nothing near the attendance you have here, we only have about forty,” Our parishioner said “perhaps something is putting people off.” The look on the visitors face changed as she realised what it was.
-
Thanks Athanasius for posting that “says it all” quote from Pope Pius XI, here and on the other thread. You’re movig up the pay scale, slowly but surely…
Vianney,
I don’t manage to get to Edinburgh Mass as often as I’d like but the atmosphere there is lovely and very welcoming. Your final couple of sentences made me smile a grim smile – let’s hope the message hit home!
-
Athanasius
Would’t want you to feel your words were ignored. It is just that there is a bit of a backlog of people having a go.
Sorry I forget where our various Fathers of the church actually come from but we are talking Scotland. Cromwell (I suppose you mean the English Vice-Gerent) has (whatever you might think) nothing to do with Scotland. The Scottish church was tottering to its doom 20 years after he was beheaded. The argument is not theological it is factual. Appropriation of parish revenues by the papacy was long resisted in England and kept under 40%. But the “special daughter” was helpless, ripped off 90% and left so enfeebled she gave up quietly – without a fraction of the fight that went on in England. A bad dose of papal mismanagement – Switzerland is the only other country where the figure topped 90%: one country got Knox the other Calvin.
“Horny Henry” – I suppose you mean Henry VIII – during his long bachelorhood, 1491-1536, again had nothing to do with Scotland, nothing to do with the Anglican settlement of 1558-1563 and nothing at all to do with modern students doing training in the Vatican Archives. Theological arguments are one thing, and historical facts are facts. The papacy reduced its “special daughter” to a parlous state through centuries of abusing its own canonical norms. You might not like the theological implications but facts are facts.
One down, two to go.
-
Leo
Yes, there was a bit of a double-take when the Petrine commission became a Dowdenine commission but that rather begs the question of juridical transmission to the successors of SS Peter and Paul. Still your post is an excuse for a second epistle to the Romans.
Nobody is suggesting medieval Scotland did not recognize the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome – that would fly in the face of the facts and and evidence and I cannot imagine sane people doing that. The point is that because the unreformed Scottish Church was subjected to the legal and financial bureaucracy of Rome and Avignon, without the proper canonical systems of metropolitan jurisdiction, it was especially badly affected.
There is no reason to assume that Ignatius, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine or Chrysostom were widely known in medieval Scotland. The twelfth-century revolution you ask about was simply the impact of a new, logic-chopping philosophy which profoundly unsettled the orthodox approach to treat Eucharistic theology as a “mystery of faith”: the statutes of the Scottish church reflect (I think) this uncertainty spilling into liturgy. The medieval “scholastic” method (which Benedict XVI conspicuously avoids) meant that little snippets were bandied about as ammunition in sterile philosophical debates: Aquinas is the arch-exponent of this tedious style. In any event, Professor Watt’s calculation was that fewer than 300 of the 1100 Scottish parishes ever had even one graduate incumbent at any time before 1410. That is 800 centres of ignorance as, from the chair of Peter, the financial basis of parishes priests were destroyed in more than 90% of parishes. The argument is that tying the Scottish church so closely to a distant bureaucracy, subverted canonical government: the interesting question is whether in subverting the Scottish church to this quite extraordinary extent the papacy “set up” a special daughter for a spectacularly complete collapse into Presbyterianism.
From the historical point of view the fact that special daughter was conjured up by Bishop Jocelyn for his own selfish reasons is significant: it explains the peculiar arrangement. Jocelyn was was absolutely key to the system established by Honorius III, operating under quidam vestrum. I agree the whole Cum Universi issues is misunderstood – it was a passing evolutionary moment and I cannot understand why people (and Wikki) focus on it and so get things muddled.
For me the interesting thing here is why people feel the need to defend the indefensible – the papacy made many mistakes, not least of them the way it behaved in Scotland. That is why there had to be a reformation but it doesn’t really have much bearing on the modern Roman-Catholic church in Scotland which is largely a new organization dating from long after the Counter Reformation had sorted the abuses out (too late, as it happened, for Scotland). It really is odd that people have to re-shape the middle ages to fit a modern theory of retrospective infallibility. I had never really encountered it before this blog but it is as interesting as it is peculiar.
-
Vianney
Last but not least – I suppose the fathes of the church outrank you.
Your dispute is not with me: “the only authentic catholic jurisdiction presently surviving in the UK is the Church of England” is an accurate statement of the law. I was just quoting one of H.M judges, E. Garth More. Timothy Briden is bringing out a fourth edition of “Moore’s Introduction to English Canon Law” for 2013 (ISBN1441168680, 9781441168689) so order it from your library if you are bothered. I am not sure the Revd Chancellor More should be on the telly! One reason is that he died recently and the others are that he was a chain-smoking, gin-swilling bachelor don at Corpus, prone to making unkind, if amusing, remarks about the female of the species and the uncanonical pretensions of Rome.
The Church in Scotland can indeed trace its origins to medieval Scotland – it is, remember, a native church rather than an accumulation of folks whose origins were in medieval Ireland, Poland, Italy or Lithuania: and if you don’t like that comment lay off the “mickey mouse” line. I dare say, given the structure of Edinburgh society the ‘piskies were none too aware of what the Romans did in Tollcross in the 1980s but it is in poor taste to refer to clergy as “laymen” or vestments as “fancy dress”.
But do go easy on assuming hosts are not “consecrated” in terms of your own denomination’s theology. It is by no means difficult to finds Anglican priest in Old Catholic orders. If you are not careful you might even have the bad luck to run into an Edinburgh episcopalian who was ordained a Roman-Catholic priest before he saw the error of his ways. That disrespectful attitude to “the Fringe” could land you what (I suspect) your own side might see as in sacrilege.
Still, I suppose the old bigotry dies hard in Tollcross. Not the Lord President’s sort of area.
Any hope we can get off the harmless ‘piskies and back to the thread?
-
Howden, Evelyn Garth More was an Anglican so he would say that wouldn’t he?
The Catholic Church in Scotland may contain people whose families originated out with the country but it is totally native. Many parts of Scotland were untouched by the reformation and even in places where the reformed faith took hold there were some who held on to the True Faith. Even in Edinburgh, where John Knox lived, there were people who held firm and the Mass continued to be celebrated. On the other hand the Scottish Episcopal Church is a Protestant Church and a product of the reformation. Most of their churches have few natives Scots in their congregations and are full of “white settlers” from South of the border. Like all Anglican Churches it does not have valid orders so does not have priests. To quote a now dead Russian Orthodox priest: “the difference between Catholics and Anglicans is, Catholics have true priests and therefore the true Body and Blood, Anglicans do not have true priests and therefore do not have the true Body and Blood.
Some Anglicans may have been ordained by Old Catholic Bishops but as many Sedevacantist priests ordained by Old Catholics are now finding out, Old Catholic orders are now in doubt because for years they have been involved with the Anglicans and have allowed Anglican “bishops” to take part in their ordination ceremonies thus rendering them null and void. -
Dowden,
You are correct in saying that if the “priest’s” orders can be traced back to Old Catholics, then the Host would be the Blessed Sacrament. However, I’m sure I did some research on this a number of years ago and the majority of “priests” in Anglican “Orders” can NOT claim to come from the Old Catholics. I don’t know numbers and can’t be certain, but I’m sure I looked into this.
If I passed by this procession I wouldn’t go out of my way to be disrespectful. However, I wouldn’t deliberately attend. It’s a non-Catholic religion. The Orthodox still have a valid Eucharist but they are non-Catholic so I wouldn’t attend.
Having said that, in some ways the Anglicans are putting Modern Catholics to shame. I’ve only been at an Anglican service once or twice and both times the had kneeling at altar rails.
-
Editor, I got so caught up with the peskie piskies that I forgot to say that it’s always a pleasure to have you join us at the Edinburgh church and you are always very welcome, as is everyone, even piskies seeking the truth!
-
Vianney,
I love going to Edinburgh. It’s a whole day outing for us so we can’t come all that often.
-
Vianney
Easty beasty, Westy besty!! I seem to recall someone saying rather proudly that the Wise men all came from the East, and the other person retorted “yes, and they were heading West!”
Only a bit of banter! There’s nothing wrong with Edinburgh and the folks in the church are indeed friendly.
-
Dowden
I refer you back to my post of June 7 (3.31pm), especially the last paragraph of Pope Pius XI’s invitation to you to return to your Father’s House: “Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, and these will be lost forever unless their interests be carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”
Note the words “obstinate wrangling.”
By the way, Leo XIII put the invalidity of Anglican Orders beyond doubt. The Old Catholic influence was minimal and doesn’t alter the general declaration of the Pope. Anglican clergy are simply not clergy.
You wrote earlier advising that I should stick to the facts, Dowden, yet you seem curiously silent when the facts don’t chime with your own opinion.
Incidentally, Henry VIII and Cromwell had everything to do with what happened in Scotland, as well as in England. John Logie Baird invented a TV of sorts. Would you argue that today’s digital video products are unrelated to his invention. He was the founding father of TV transmission in the same way that Henry and Cromwell were the founding fathers of the Reformation and its consequent destructive onslaught.
-
Petrus, I’m glad you like coming to Edinburgh and when you say “we” I presume you aren’t using the “royal we” so there are more of you. Trying to figure out who you could be, and copying dear old Hercule Periot by using “zee leetle grey cells” did you join us at the parish visit to the Pantomime last year? (and I don’t mean Mass at the cathedral.)
Athanasius, of course the folk are friendly, if they’ll talk to you they’ll talk to anybody! Ha, ha.
-
Vianney,
No, I didn’t come to the panto. I have only been to Edinburgh 3 or 4 times in the last 3 years so I don’t think I’d be recognised. My wife and I do love coming, the space is great when you have young children and people are very friendly.
-
Petrus, I knew that old fool Hercule was talking a load of rubbish. The Edinburgh church is a big building and does have lots of space and it’s a great pity the Glasgow church is so small, they really need something bigger. Anyway, you know you are always welcome.
-
Vianney
I agree. We should fix our sites on squatting at St. Aloysius! It hasn’t been used as a Catholic church for years anyway!
-
Athanasius,
Could you imagine a Traditional Mass in St Aloysius? It would be utterly amazing.
-
Petrus
Indeed it would.
-
The Episcopal Ordination Mass of Bishop Robson yesterday was truly prayerful, however it was very sadly marred by the silly speed of the Litany of the Saints, so fast it became ridiculous.
PS – perhaps i hadn’t noticed before? However the Cathedral has two doors into the cafe/bistro from the porch. I had only been aware of one? -
Dowden
I am inclined to think that Petrus’ advice not to respond to your posts is well founded. I’m not in any way confident that anything will be gained here. It might cause you to think a bit more before posting in future. It may even prevent you flaunting your pertinacious errors in matters concerning the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, although I rather think that will require greater powers than mine.
I’m glad that you “cannot imagine sane people” not recognizing the jurisdiction of the Pope in medieval Scotland. Is that an admission of the fact that I have been trying to convey to you that there is only one Church of Christ, and medieval Scots were most assuredly part of that one true Church, united in faith, sacraments and ecclesiastical governance to the successor of Peter? The logic and sanity, not to mention orthodoxy, of those who up to the present day try to argue that salvation can be found outside that Catholic Church is quite another matter.
The only reason I ever mentioned the papal bull Cum universi previously was to demonstrate “ecclesia Scoticana’s” undeniable unity with the See of Peter. You produced no evidence to indicate otherwise. Quite the opposite in fact.
Once again Dowden, you really need to read my posts more carefully. On June 6 I did not say that Saints Ignatius, Ambrose and John Chrysostom were widely known in medieval Scotland. I was making the point that Scotland, at that time, held to the one true faith, unadulterated through the centuries. It is hardly unreasonable to expect that Scottish Bishops and priests were familiar with a basic tenet of faith as expressed by Saint Augustine. I admit that not all Scots may have been familiar with the words of Saint Cyprian on apostasy. It’s probably reasonable to say it wasn’t an issue in Scotland at the time. Happily, pervasive heresy and disunity were still centuries off. Anyway, I wouldn’t underestimate the religious knowledge of the medieval Scots. Those Irish monks laid a sound foundation, I’m sure.
With respect, Dowden, I’m sure I’m not alone in finding much of what you post to be riddled with fundamental theological errors. A comment on lack of clarity and coherence is probably in order too. Take the following statement of yours:
“The twelfth-century revolution you ask about was simply the impact of a new, logic-chopping philosophy which profoundly unsettled the orthodox approach to treat Eucharistic theology as a “mystery of faith”: the statutes of the Scottish church reflect (I think) this uncertainty spilling into liturgy.”
What’s all that about? It looks like something concocted by Sir Humphrey in a moment of blind panic. You don’t give even the briefest outline of what you mean by revolution. You have told us that the statutes of the Church in Scotland date from the thirteenth century (1242 to be exact). On the central issue of the Blessed Sacrament, there never has been one single moment in the history of Church when the dogma of the Real Presence was open to question. You seem to be unaware, Dowden that the Church reiterated this dogma at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Your theory does not hold any water. Your comment on the First Holy Communion thread on 29 that Scottish Bishops at the time of Pope Innocent IV “may have been worried about the new theories of ‘transubstantiation’ leading to popular superstition” parades a rather glaring ignorance of Church dogma.
Your jibe about Scholasticism and statement that “Aquinas is the arch-exponent of this tedious style” is easily dismissed. Let anyone who is in doubt about the importance of Scholastic Philosophy read Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris, or consider that when Saint Pope Pius X’s was prescribing remedies against Modernism he gave first place “to the Scholastic philosophy, especially as it was taught by Thomas Aquinas.”
You seem to be unfamiliar, Dowden with the following words of Pope Benedict. They respond to your denigration of the Angelic Doctor far better than ever I could:
The Summa Theologicae “consists of concentrated reasoning in which the human mind is applied to the mysteries of faith, with clarity and depth to the mysteries of faith, alternating questions with answers in which Saint Thomas deepens the teaching that comes from Sacred Scripture and from the Fathers of the Church, especially Saint Augustine”.
“Saint Thomas helps us to understand the excellence of the sacrament of the Eucharist, when he writes: “Since this (the Eucharist) is the sacrament of Our Lord’s Passion, it contains in itself the Jesus Christ who suffered for us. Thus, whatever is an effect of Our Lord’s Passion is also an effect of this sacrament. For this sacrament is nothing other than the application of Our Lord’s Passion to us”.
“The content of the Doctor Angelicus’ preaching corresponds with virtually the whole structure of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.”
“It is not surprising that, after Saint Augustine, among the ecclesiastical writers mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Saint Thomas is cited more than any other, at least 61 times! He was called the Doctor Angelicus, perhaps because of his virtues and, in particular, the sublimity of his thought and the purity of his life.”
“In short, Thomas Aquinas showed that a natural harmony exists between faith and reason.”
“He created a new synthesis which formed the culture of the centuries to come.”
At Paris “he began his literary production which continued until his death and has something miraculous about it”.
“Thomas had an exquisitely Eucharistic soul. The most beautiful hymns that the Liturgy of the Church sings to celebrate the mystery of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist are attributed to his faith and his theological wisdom.”
“His students understandably were enthusiastic about his lessons. One of his former pupils declared that a vast multitude of students took Thomas’ courses, so many that the halls could barely accommodate them; and this student added, making a personal comment, that “listening to him brought him deep happiness”.
“And the people too came willingly to hear him. I would say that it is truly a great grace when theologians are able to speak to the faithful with simplicity and fervor.”
What was all that about “tedious style”, Dowden?
I don’t know how your remark about a lack of graduate incumbents in Scottish parishes before 1410 is relevant to any issue raised for discussion. In passing, I will say that lack of education hardly hampered the sanctifying work of Saint John Vianney, the Cure of Ars.
I must say, Dowden, that you really went heavy on the chutzpah in your final paragraph. Who is defending the indefensible? I’m not aware of any such defences. What quite a few of us have been trying to do, Dowden, is convince you, in the face of your seeming resolute resistance, that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church of Christ, the sole ark of salvation. I’m not aware of anybody here making claims of impeccability amongst the Church’s human element, or of constant freedom from error in prudential matters. As for papal mistakes, do you not agree that there are plenty of comments made around here about disastrous papal mistakes that have taken place within living memory? Mistakes by the Church’s human element have been old news for nearly two millennia. Do you not recall, Dowden the quote from Hilaire Belloc that I gave you previously: “Any purely human institution run by such a group of knaves, fools and cutthroats wouldn’t have lasted a fortnight.”
You said, Dowden that “there had to be a reformation.” Once again in the absence of clarity, we’re left to make up our own minds on what this is supposed to mean. Claiming that mistakes and wrongdoing among the human element of the Church justify the rejection of the divine authority of the Church and replacing it with individual judgement really is a monumental NO NO, as is implying that the modern day Catholic Church in Scotland (you said organisation) is a different Church to that which sanctified Catholics before the 16th century revolution. Again you don’t make it very clear, Dowden, what exactly you mean. I’m told study of Aquinas can be useful for the purpose of developing clarity of expression.
Again, I’m at a bit of a loss to understand your final comment about people re-shaping the middle ages and papal infallibility. Who is re-shaping what? I think you’ll agree that there is no argument about the Church in medieval Scotland being faithful to the Magisterium and recognising the supreme authority of the See of Peter. An 11th century papal bull resulted in the latter being manifestly obvious. You seem to consider that concession on this point justified galloping off on a tangent about alleged centuries-long financial exploitation by bureaucrats in Rome, having said that “it (the closer link to Rome) was, obviously, going to cause anarchy in a whole province – since communications would take months”. This financial argument is a straw man for the purposes of this discussion.
You appear to be trying to promote a theory that from the late 12th century, the Church in Scotland was financially exploited by Rome to such an extent that it was in no state to withstand the onslaught of heresy in the 16th century. Fair enough? I expect quite a few around here to have a far greater knowledge than me of the history of the Church in Scotland up to the 16th century. Nevertheless the following observations seem to suggest, Dowden that your theory may not hold up too well to scrutiny:
Is it really correct, Dowden to attribute such a long lasting effect to Cum universi if it was, in your words, “a passing evolutionary moment”?
You don’t mention any time scale for this “90%” financial fleecing of the Scottish flock and shepherds. Did it go on for nearly four centuries before the revolution? One of the sources you cited previously was “Skinned to the bone: Durham evidence for taxations of the church in Scotland, 1254-1366”, Innes Review, 50, 1999. Did the situation stay constant after 1366?
The reign of King William which spanned the 12th and 13th century was prolific in religious foundations.
In 1225 the Scottish bishops met in council for the first time without the presence of a legate from Rome, electing one of their number, as directed by a papal bull, to preside over the assembly with quasi-metropolitan authority and the title of conservator. It seems the Scottish Bishops were in fact a bit more than rent collectors.
In the thirteenth century, under the second and third Alexanders, the Church in Scotland flourished through many new religious foundations.
Religious zeal was still warm in the fourteenth century as evidenced by the foundation at Dunbar of a collegiate church in 1342, a precursor of some forty other establishments of the same kind founded before the Reformation.
For a generation, Scotland resisted the revolution which Henry VIII tried to impose on her.
As elsewhere, did not the designs of worldly and avaricious nobility foster revolution? The Church’s accumulated wealth was indeed a vulnerable target in Scotland.
The destruction of churches and monasteries that went on unabated in 1560 and 1561 hardly suggests that Scotland had previously become a Catholic wasteland.
You appear to suggest, Dowden that the Church in Scotland was badly off financially at the time of the Reformation. Are you willing to agree that accumulated wealth hardly guaranteed virtuous behaviour within, or prevented attacks from schismatics and heretics in the case of other countries?
Wealth in a diocese hardly guarantees adherence to Catholic Truth. It’s not very difficult to think of modern day examples.
I’m not entirely optimistic about the results of this post. Thoughts about nailing jelly to the wall and picking up mercury with a fork are hard to shake off for some reason.
Don’t take offence at the above, Dowden. But, if you poke a stick at the belief of Catholics it’s not unreasonable to expect us to grab the other end and jab back. In a civilised and good natured fashion of course.
-
Leo
A masterly response! I take it you’ve been studying St. Thomas for you certainly had the clarity of mind to answer Dowden’s spurious and ambiguous claims.
-
Athanasius
Thanks for that. Don’t tell anyone else, but it’s an ongoing resolution of mine to get much better informed about the writings of the Angelic Doctor. A vast subject of course but the teachings of Pope Leo XIII and Saint Pope Pius X are more than enough encouragement.
There are quite a few publications available at Carmel Books to help with study. A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Paul Glenn and the pocket sized My Way of Life by Fr. W. Farrell O.P. are excellent as is Fr. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
If anyone is interested, I should point out that the quotes from Pope Benedict in my post were taken from the three Wednesday morning audiences that he devoted to Saint Thomas in June 2010.
-
Leo
St. Thomas was a great saint indeed, whose incredible intellect was equalled only by his humility and sanctity. No wonder the internal enemies of our Faith were so keen to ditch Thomistic teaching from the seminaries. They could never have perverted the faith of seminarians while St. Thomas’ wisdom was there to thwart them.
It pleases me to see that Pope Benedict has re-introduced Thomistic theology back into the seminaries, and that the Pope himself has publicly praised the great saint and his works on a number of occasions. There’s hope for us yet!
-
Athanasius
Very well said. I’m sure you know more about the great Doctor than I do.
Believe it or not, before logging on, I had just read an article by the always excellent John Vennari in the June edition of his Catholic Family News. Well, well worth reading. What a source of knowledge.
The article is entitled “Modernism Repackaged: The “New Theology” and Vatican II”. In it, he made the point of just how important Aquinas is, and “to scorn Saint Thomas, the philosophy of the Church of Christ, is to scorn the magisterium itself, since countless papal allocutions and encyclicals repeatedly give Saint Thomas “primary of place (Pope Pius XII)”.Pope Pius XI said that “as innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own”.”
The article tells us that Pope Pius XI also explained that “no Doctor of the Church is so terrifying and formidable to modernists and other enemies of the Catholic faith as Aquinas”.
Says it all really.
-
About St. Thomas: all my children were given a good grounding in his philosophy by an excellent priest and several great teachers. My eldest says that the problem with modern education is that students are not taught how to think. I believe he has hit on something here, even for lay folk. Priests are no longer “formed” properly. They seem to be taught a mixture of phenomenology (a la John Paul 11) and of a sort of wishey washey subjectivism. I really don’t understand why any young man would want to be a modern day priest or perhaps it’s a good career move!
-
Leo,
I hope you weren’t fishing for compliments but I am impressed by your civilised and good-natured jab back (with perhaps your research assistant in the background). Sorry it has taken me a fair while to respond to your post. We are some way from the Lord President but never mind.
I wasn’t actually disputing the fact of papal jurisdiction over the unreformed western church before its nemesis in the sixteenth century. The Scottish materials in the Secret Archives of the Vatican simply raise the question whether, in over-reaching what one man with limited communications could personally do as primus inter pares, bishops of Rome and Avignon created a crisis. Archbishop Lefebre argued that too much paperwork for one man to handle properly leaves real power in the hands of bureaucrats – not so much Sir Humphrey as Mgr Umfrédo. Nor was I suggesting the twelfth-century dispute was not about the “real presence”. It was just abstruse stuff about the “moment” of consecration and similar speculations: translated into the Scottish statutes St Andrews was with Innocent III and the defeated conservatives while Aberdeen was modernist. It was a nice try, incidentally, to pick up on “you have told us that the statutes of the Church in Scotland date from the thirteenth century (1242 to be exact)”. A case of picking the heretic up before he fell: only the St Andrews Statutes are 1242, to be exact. The date of the Aberdeen collection is not known exactly (the late Professor Watt tried but could not solve the problem).
The real point I am interested in is whether people feel they have to “use” the past to prove a present point, be it communion in both kinds or altar rails. What you tell us was that in the thirteenth century “the Church in Scotland flourished through many new religious foundations. Religious zeal was still warm in the fourteenth century as evidenced by the foundation at Dunbar of a collegiate church in 1342.”
In fact Scotland had a far worse record overall than England, Wales or Ireland for monastic foundations: the last royal endowment was before 1250, the last big monastery was Devorguilla’s Sweetheart Abbey in the 1270s. QUB’s survey suggests Scotland had the lowest ratio of religious houses per head of any part of these islands: Ireland had 0.24 religious houses per thousand people to Scotland’s 0.11.
Congratulations, however, on making it through the Scottish Catholic Historical Association’s iniquitous pay-wall to access “Taxations of the church in Scotland, 1254-1366” in Innes Review (if it was not completely illegal perhaps you could let us all know how you managed that). But the citation seems reliable – albeit the author was a Cambridge man. If I read it correctly, it was not that anything stopped after in 1366: just that money was extracted following a new method since the pretext of a Crusade had worn thin and the popes concentrated on collecting fees for appointments and legal work where the “special daughter” contributed a lot more on average than most.
The interesting difference is that it seems (according to that QUB project) Ireland was poor and the Irish church had an income (in the old money) of only 27d per head to Scotland’s 76d. But, although much poorer, Ireland had 0.44 clergy per 1000 people while Scotland had only 0.22. Put the other way for every penny poor Ireland contributed, rich Scotland managed one farthing. So Ireland with 4 archbishops had a system which “worked”, Scotland, with the pope as a sort of absentee archbishop went to ruin. After Innocent IV the Scots were building up a superstructure of few but wealthy monasteries and sucking money out of the parishes. The figures are that 90% of Scottish parish revenues were “appropriated” by 1560 and 86% of vicars had surplus revenues confiscated if they went over the minimum stipend.
The Dunbar church you mention is a spectacularly bad example. It was not warm religious zeal in 1342, and certainly was not “new” money, just a rearrangement in which no fewer than 5 parishes had their income diverted to the earl’s new college. Innocent IV had wanted good jobs to go to born aristocrats so the earl of Dunbar could put up his illegitimate son for this plum new job. The pope obliged, despite the other benefices held and canonical impediment and made the boy a monsignor. In one sense it was good that a college of clerks and boys in decent habits were singing services according to Sarum, the Use of the Scottish Church (secundum usum ecclesie Scoticane) rather than foreign models but this was achieved by diverting parish revenues. Dunbar got into such a mess that eventually Alexander VI (Borgia) suppressed the place long before the Reformation, allowing the money to pass of an illegitimate son of King James – Alexander VI was noted for his kindness of the illegitimate.
It seems to me a legitimate supposition that the “special daughter” relationship might explain why the Scottish church became unusually corrupt and out of control with a pope instead of local archbishops, whereas Ireland with four archbishops had a better structure. The rule would be that the more a national church is under papal control, the worse the outcome will be.
Just a thought past twilight.
-
As I said elsewhere, Dowden, welcome back. I hope you saw a bit of cricket over the last month.
Thanks for the very detailed response. Fair play to you. Compliments to your own “research staff”. I’ll definitely read it again at least a couple of times.
“The “special daughter” contributed a lot more on average than most.” It looks like you Scots have been shamefully slandered on the question of reluctance to part with money!
The 27d per head income in Ireland versus 76d in Scotland is an interesting comparison. It doesn’t reflect well on us hibernians. I hope my great great great…grandparents were spending all their money on booze and gambling instead of supporting their priests.
“Alexander VI was noted for his kindness of the illegitimate.”
That’s one rather diplomatic way of putting it. Now that is Sir Humphrey speak! I was more than smiling when I read that. He certainly looked after the young fella Cesare; bishop at 15 and cardinal at 18!
Seriously though, scandalous personal immorality aside, I think he was quite a competent pope (?), and more theologically orthodox than a lot of present Curia incumbents, no doubt.
Well done on blowing TU’s cover. Expect more plaudits.
Vsevo kharosheva!
Comments are now closed.
97 comments