St Gregory the Great (540-604) holds a special place within the Church of England and Wales as he was the pope who instructed Augustine to evangelise Britain
errrrrrrrrrrrr - well I suppose so, if we have to condense this to one sentence - but (imho) it reads almost as belittling to the Celtic Church as Augustine himself was.
One might go as far as to say that it is our bishops who belittle the Celtic Church by asking for Gregory and Augustine to be elevated to feasts, while not requesting that Celtic saints are treated in the same manner. Bede, a doctor of the church, remains a memorial. Rome, by granting recognitio, clearly beleive the Celtic influence to be similarly unimportant.
But this Society should rejoice at the honour to its patron, rather than complain about perceived slights to other saints.
Indeed - yes, I rejoice that our patron has been thus elevated. However, I take the point about the Celtic heritage. It's as though it never happened. How about 're-evangelise'? After all, they had it, but lost it after the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
I think that, whoever you elevate to 'feast' status, folk will feel there are others just as deserving. I'm glad that St Gregory, St Thomas of Canterbury, St Augustine of Canterbury and the 40 Martyrs are all going to be feasts as these days are celebrated in many parishes and schools. Part of the unhappiness may stem from the problem that there were serious disputes between Augustine and the British Church and Augustine/Rome won out - history tends to favour the winners. I'm sure that our bishops would also apply to elevate St Columba and others if there was a concerted plea by clergy and people. Possibly parishes could start up petitions?
The problem is, the more feasts you promote, the more the Church's universal calendar goes out of the window. Vat II cleaned up the calendar, and but John Paul II managed to erect more additions to the revised calendar than any pope previously, thus messing it up again. We need to be clear about what we want, before we start patting ourselves on the back for yet more feasts.
Southern Comfort wrote:The problem is, the more feasts you promote, the more the Church's universal calendar goes out of the window. Vat II cleaned up the calendar, and but John Paul II managed to erect more additions to the revised calendar than any pope previously, thus messing it up again. We need to be clear about what we want, before we start patting ourselves on the back for yet more feasts.
Pour on the jaundice?
SC
Odd. I get the impression some want a universal calendar and an Anglophone version of the liturgy.
NorthernTenor wrote:Odd. I get the impression some want a universal calendar and an Anglophone version of the liturgy.
It is difficult to tell from this post exactly what Northern Tenor considers to be at issue as the topic of liturgical language has been hiterto entirely absent from this thread. Indeed, I cannot recall that the two topics have ever been discussed together in this forum. Are the two concepts mutually exclusive, or intimately associated? Is the exclusivity, or association, universal or connected with a particular 'label' of liturgical viewpoint?
What is the connection between the calendar and the language of liturgy? Who are the 'some' who want an anglophone liturgy and universal calendar?
Why is the suggestion of maintenance of a universal calendar considered 'odd'?
festivaltrumpet wrote:What is the connection between the calendar and the language of liturgy? Who are the 'some' who want an anglophone liturgy and universal calendar?
Why is the suggestion of maintenance of a universal calendar considered 'odd'?
I'm surprised you don't see the connection, FT. It's odd to see some argue for a stronger balance of the universal vs the local in one area - the calandar - and a weaker in another - the fidelity of the English translation of the Mass to the original (I apologise, FT and SC, if neither of you falls into this category - I made the comment because I know a number of those who do). I'm afraid this reflects a preference amongst some liberals and conservatives alike for central control and uniformity when it suits them, and local rights when it doesn't.
As to the matter of universal calendar vs local variations itself: I don't see any great imbalance in these countries, save perhaps for the shifting of so many feasts to the nearest Sunday. I'm willing to change my mind if someone provides detailed arguments and examples.
NT, you raise an interesting point and I suspect I am about to make the same argument as you from a different perspective. Personally, I lean towards localising as much as possible and see no problem with either local feasts or having a translation of the Mass which is not a direct rendering of the Latin. But, of course, matters of faith and morals are not relative and are universal. Our belief as Catholics is that the Holy Spirit gives direction to the Church chiefly through the Bishops in conjunction with and in submission to the Pope - but in the Western church there are many tensions, disillusionments and rejection of Church among both traditionlists and modernisers, when the Church's current teachings collide with their viewpoint. Perhaps the Church needs to listen more to its laity: for me, the alternative of a 'holy huddle' of Vatican insiders and their follwers is too awful to contemplate. But listening to the laity contradicts has few precedents in Church tradition. So many laity just give up and leave as did many priests during the 60's, 70's and 80's. I can quite understand (and share) SC's frustration that changes post Vatican 2 (made in living memory), are already being reversed.
JW wrote:I think that, whoever you elevate to 'feast' status, folk will feel there are others just as deserving. Part of the unhappiness may stem from the problem that there were serious disputes between Augustine and the British Church and Augustine/Rome won out - history tends to favour the winners. I'm sure that our bishops would also apply to elevate St Columba and others if there was a concerted plea by clergy and people. Possibly parishes could start up petitions?
History may favour winners, but our faith demand a preferential option for the poor (i.e. losers?)
Perhaps we should lobby for one "Feast of the Celtic Saints of the British Isles" in recognition of our common heritage, to be observed throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland?
