|
Post by rogerbuck on Jun 7, 2017 11:22:36 GMT
Okay - I have a 37 minute voice response. Whew! Again, no expectation that anyone listen to it. A couple of notes: it's addressed to you, Maolsheachlann, whom I call Mal - as I do - and anyone else who may interested enough to listen all or part. Second, the upside, for me, of this 37 minutes is that it didn't take me 6 hours to write up! But the downside is I can't easily edit it because of the format it's in! And I'm already regretting things I said! At one point, Mal, I challenge you, suggesting that you might be too hasty or even dismissive about one thing regarding Belloc. I rather regret using the word "dismissive" - I fear it sounds disrespectful of you and I respect you deeply. So please forgive me if I got a little too "testy" on that one point ... the issues here with not just Belloc but the whole Chesterbelloc phenomenon, very much including GK's Weekly and GKs support for Belloc therein are CORE to my whole life work. A final reference in case anyone's listening - I refer to an anti-Belloc author called Jay P Corrin who wrote two books on the Chesterbelloc, the first one being: GK Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc: The Battle Against Modernity.It may be that I draw too much from Corrin and I am very open to being challenged in what I say. That said, if anyone does challenge me, I may still bow out of the discussion or just quickly thank people for their input. One last time: going into a deep intricate response like this is, alas, really not something I can easily find time for and I may have to just bow out ... Here is the link to the voicemail: vocaroo.com/i/s0f8gRgeUfm8
|
|
|
Post by seaininmacbradaigh on Jun 7, 2017 14:12:55 GMT
The Book of Common Prayer was published in Latin in Ireland because it was illegal to publish in Gaelic. If you were to argue that this doesn't constitute a poor effort at reformation in Ireland by the authorities, all your work is uphill in my opinion. Elizabeth I paid for the very first printing press to be established in Ireland and whose type was completely Irish. Every book produced in on that press was solely in Gaelic as it didnt have an English typeface. The very first book to be printed in Gaelic was Foirm na n-Urrnuidheadh (Book of Common Order) in 1564 which essentially was the Book of Common Prayer of the Presbyterian Church and was employed widely in Ireland. The New Testament was published in Irish in 1585 and the full Bible was published in 1602, with a separate edition published in 1685. The Genevan Psalter, with musical annotations, was published in 1566 in Gaelic and was employed by the authorities as a means of Protestantising the population through song. Virtually every bishop outside the Pale produced an Irish catechism by 1660. Likewise, it was compulsory for every clerk undergoing training for orders in TCD to take Irish lessons for until the middle of the eighteenth century when the Church of Ireland essentially accepted that they would never convert the bulk of the population. Needless to say, all of these publications, received the full support of the government and were widely used. Dublin castle even paid ministers for upwards on a century and a half (until circa 1740) to preach sermons in Irish in several Dublin churches and virtually every bishop had similar arrangements so that every CoI diocese had sermons at least once a month until the middle of the eighteenth century. The last real attempt of Protestantism to convert Ireland through Irish was the first Methodist ministers, including Wesley himself, who employed translators to repeat the sermon in Irish in every place they preached in Ireland, including solidly English speaking Belfast. The Presbyterian church was far more active in its attempts to convert the native Irish. In Ulster for example there were more Presbyterian ministers who spoke and preached in Gaelic than there were Catholic priests for nearly fifty years until around 1680. The idea that has been peddled by the protestants that the only reason why the Reformation failed here is because they failed to use the core concept of the use of the vernacular to explain their inability to win over the population is a nineteenth century myth created on the advent of disestablishment. Likewise, the myth suited Republicans who wished to portray the colonial regime as draconian as possible, preventing the printing of books in the vernacular. The fact is that printing in Gaelic reached a climax in Ireland in the height of the penal days with around of 40% of publications being produced in Ireland through the medium of Gaelic, the vast majority of it being religious or devotional in nature. That is ignoring the vast corpus of Gaelic literature being produced in Scotland and the Isle of Mann which employed Common Classical Gaelic spelling and orthography and thus could be read and used in Ireland as easily as it was in Scotland and Mann, and factually were used in Ireland widely, even by the Catholic population. What people mistake is that printing of Catholic literature in Irish was banned and thus was carried out in the continental Irish colleges. So yeah, I think it is you who faces the uphill battle sir.
|
|
|
Post by seaininmacbradaigh on Jun 7, 2017 15:15:27 GMT
Your thesis is that the Irish rejection of Protestantism is rooted in the Irish language itself, which emphasizes the creative and spiritual over logic and order. Is this correct?It is a scientific fact that language affects cognitive perception. The use of Greek in the East as opposed to Latin in the western Church shows how deeply influential language choice is on how people perceive ideas and concepts. I believe that because Irish is so entwined with Catholicism, which it is to an extraordinary degree, made it incredibly difficult for Protestantism to take root. Frankly, it would have required the de-Catholicisation of vast amounts of terms, phrases, names and idiom. The fact that so much of the ideas and concepts and beliefs of the faith were expressed in daily speech made infertile ground for the oppostite to take root in the heart. Likewise, Irish is a remarkably "patriarchal" language. Age and antiquity naturally assume respect in its converse, this would have played well in favour of Catholicism which is old and antique. Protestantism on the other hand was regarded as unnoble, like the English language itself, being a recent invention and thus was not worthy of reverence or respect. There was also an idea of the sanctity of the Irish language itself. It was a common belief in the 19th century that prayers had to be said in Irish as the devil couldnt understand it, that Adam and Eve spoke Irish in the Garden of Eden and that God spoke Irish, that Irish had been created by God by bringing together the best bits of every language. The ideas that surrounded language is expressed easily enough by the names of languages in Irish: languages reflect their nation so "Gaeilge" roughly translates as the "speech of the Gaels", "Fraincis" the "speech of the French", "Iodáilis" the "speech of the Italians", all of which are feminine, and this can be replicated for every language under the sun, with the exception of English with is "Béarla" which is masculine and roughly translates into something like "mouth nonsense". 1. If Irish Catholicism, rooted in the Irish language, is more creative and spiritual in character and Reformation Protestantism more logic and ordered, what was the theological character of Irish Catholicism during the Reformation? Was it informed by Scholasticism? Scholasticism had little effect on Irish theology until the Reformation. Aquinas was rarely studied and the only Scholastic theologian who was studied widely at the time was Duns Scotus as evidenced by surviving manuscripts and glosses. There is a little Aquinas in some monastic literature but he is rarely quoted. The character of late medieval Irish Catholicism was an eclectic mix of the ancient and the conventional. The Irish schools relied more heavily on patriarchal theology (St. Augustine and St Gregory "the golden mouthed" as he is labelled in Irish) and had a bizarre (in western European terms) fascination with the fathers of the desert and the Greek fathers. Conversely, in devotional life, the Franciscans were the real brokers of Irish spirituality, conventional devotion to the Sacred Passion, to Our Lady and to the host of popular European saints was common to all of Ireland. On the other hand, there is intense devotion to the native local saints, particularly St. Brigid and St. Colmcille, relics of these saints were held far more in esteem than those of European saints and particularly Books, Bells and Croziers of the local saint were the focus of intense devotion. Unlike other parts of Europe, Ireland retained a deep fascination with hermetical life. Anchorites and Dendroites (hermits who lived in trees) were commonplace and the "Céilí Dé", colleges of hermetical canons who practiced intense deprivations, formed the most prestigious college of Irish clerics in the popular mind. Finally, although there was a common veneration of the Papacy throughout the Catholic world, in Ireland it would appear this was more intense. For example, when the Papal Nuncio to England visited Downpatrick on pilgrimage in 1529, he couldn't leave the house because thousands of people had gathered around the door and had actually ripped off his cloak and staff as relics "because they understood me to be the representative of the Pope. Truly there is no more pious nation in all of Christendom than this kingdom". 2. If the language spoken overwhelmingly shapes the spiritual outlook of a people, how do you account for the overwhelming piety so many Irish immigrants, many (most?) of whom who were raised for the immigrant ship as exclusively English-speakers, brought to the New World?Irish remained the majority language of Ireland until the Famine. The vast majority of people who left Ireland in the nineteenth century either were Irish speaking, or whose Parents were Irish speaking. Even until the 1950's - 1960's the vast bulk of the Irish population were only two or three generations separated from the Gaelic cultural paradigm. It would be completely understandable that in such a short time the faith they held would be similar to their Irish speaking ancestors. Couple that with the focus on Catholicism as the primary factor of identity and the intense victorian religiosity fostered by the devotional revolution of the late nineteenth century and you have the perfect explanation of the overwhelming piety of Irish immigrants to the USA in the first half of the twentieth century. See map of the Gaeltacht 1800-2011 below
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 15:51:21 GMT
The thing about the English Reformation is that it presented itself as a restoration of the "primitive" Church, so it was not actually presenting Protestantism as something new but rather something very venerable indeed. That's not to say that anyone need have swallowed that and certainly it would have been a hard sell in a country as steeped in monasticism as Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by seaininmacbradaigh on Jun 7, 2017 16:28:34 GMT
The thing about the English Reformation is that it presented itself as a restoration of the "primitive" Church, so it was not actually presenting Protestantism as something new but rather something very venerable indeed. That's not to say that anyone need have swallowed that and certainly it would have been a hard sell in a country as steeped in monasticism as Ireland. Ah but thats just the thing, they did present it as a return to the primitive church free from Roman errors in Ireland. There was distinctive attempts to present St. Patrick as an Anglican and they attempted to use examples from Irish history of royal interference in the Church as evidence of the Royal Supremacy. Needless to say, it didnt work here as it did in England and Wales.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 20:58:33 GMT
Those are some fine posts. Thank you. I must admit I find the case you make quite compelling.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 22:11:15 GMT
I've just finished listening to your recording, Roger. Actually I listened to it twice, since the first time the sound cut out several times, for brief periods, and I thought it might be a problem with my computer. But I tried it on another computer and the same thing happened. I only missed little bits here and there, though.
I acknowledge I misunderstood you about usury. I did think you meant interest.
I suppose I'm so sceptical of any hostility towards "capitalism" because capitalism seems like the only game in town to me. Yes, in two thousand years we may have a very different system, but we may be in a post-scarcity situation then. Anything could happen by then. I've read What's Wrong with the World and The Outline of Sanity by Chesterton, and I do see the value in his emphasis upon humankind's abiding desires-- such as a house (not an apartment) for every family. Perhaps simply as an affirmation of the human spirit, of the healthy ideal human society, as a template against which to judge our own society. But, though I see the value, it seems limited to me. Chesterton frequently suggested some kind of revolution would be necessary to bring about his desired order, and this is where he loses me...there seems something deeply irresponsible about that attitude. It seems extremely improbable. There are so many sects and micro-parties with so many plans for the complete transformation of society, I find that kind of thing charming and noble in its way, but not serious-minded. I realize I'm just repeating stuff I've said to you already, and it might even sound like I haven't taken on board your points in the voicemail, but....well, to be honest, I find myself in the same place, even after listening carefully.
The thing about the two party system in America, or the two-and-a-half party system in Ireland, and the three party system in the UK, is that-- in my view-- ultimately only the voters are to blame. They choose to vote for these parties. It's open to anyone to start their own party or to run for election. Every criticism of democracy, in my view, misses the point that all the things that are complained about in the democracy could well be even worse in a non-democratic system-- except there's nothing you can do about it in that case, other than revolt.
Having said that, I would be very interested to hear more particularly what vision you have, or Belloc had, for a different system. And the test of such systems is always-- what about the worst case scenario?
I hope this doesn't sound too negative-- you said you couldn't respond to a long objection, and I tried to keep it short, but it got away from me.
Perhaps the thing that intrigued me most in the voice message was your suggestion that the Stuarts were more absolute monarchs than the Tudors. No, I can't claim to be an expert or very deeply read on the subject, but I've read a fair bit about it and I never would have thought this. What do other people think?
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 8, 2017 10:09:33 GMT
Your thesis is that the Irish rejection of Protestantism is rooted in the Irish language itself, which emphasizes the creative and spiritual over logic and order. Is this correct?It is a scientific fact that language affects cognitive perception. The use of Greek in the East as opposed to Latin in the western Church shows how deeply influential language choice is on how people perceive ideas and concepts. I believe that because Irish is so entwined with Catholicism, which it is to an extraordinary degree, made it incredibly difficult for Protestantism to take root. Frankly, it would have required the de-Catholicisation of vast amounts of terms, phrases, names and idiom. The fact that so much of the ideas and concepts and beliefs of the faith were expressed in daily speech made infertile ground for the oppostite to take root in the heart. Likewise, Irish is a remarkably "patriarchal" language. Age and antiquity naturally assume respect in its converse, this would have played well in favour of Catholicism which is old and antique. Protestantism on the other hand was regarded as unnoble, like the English language itself, being a recent invention and thus was not worthy of reverence or respect. There was also an idea of the sanctity of the Irish language itself. It was a common belief in the 19th century that prayers had to be said in Irish as the devil couldnt understand it, that Adam and Eve spoke Irish in the Garden of Eden and that God spoke Irish, that Irish had been created by God by bringing together the best bits of every language. The ideas that surrounded language is expressed easily enough by the names of languages in Irish: languages reflect their nation so "Gaeilge" roughly translates as the "speech of the Gaels", "Fraincis" the "speech of the French", "Iodáilis" the "speech of the Italians", all of which are feminine, and this can be replicated for every language under the sun, with the exception of English with is "Béarla" which is masculine and roughly translates into something like "mouth nonsense". FASCINATING! I wouldn't even know where to start.1. If Irish Catholicism, rooted in the Irish language, is more creative and spiritual in character and Reformation Protestantism more logic and ordered, what was the theological character of Irish Catholicism during the Reformation? Was it informed by Scholasticism? Scholasticism had little effect on Irish theology until the Reformation. Aquinas was rarely studied and the only Scholastic theologian who was studied widely at the time was Duns Scotus as evidenced by surviving manuscripts and glosses. There is a little Aquinas in some monastic literature but he is rarely quoted. The character of late medieval Irish Catholicism was an eclectic mix of the ancient and the conventional. The Irish schools relied more heavily on patriarchal theology (St. Augustine and St Gregory "the golden mouthed" as he is labelled in Irish) and had a bizarre (in western European terms) fascination with the fathers of the desert and the Greek fathers. Conversely, in devotional life, the Franciscans were the real brokers of Irish spirituality, conventional devotion to the Sacred Passion, to Our Lady and to the host of popular European saints was common to all of Ireland. On the other hand, there is intense devotion to the native local saints, particularly St. Brigid and St. Colmcille, relics of these saints were held far more in esteem than those of European saints and particularly Books, Bells and Croziers of the local saint were the focus of intense devotion. Unlike other parts of Europe, Ireland retained a deep fascination with hermetical life. Anchorites and Dendroites (hermits who lived in trees) were commonplace and the "Céilí Dé", colleges of hermetical canons who practiced intense deprivations, formed the most prestigious college of Irish clerics in the popular mind. Finally, although there was a common veneration of the Papacy throughout the Catholic world, in Ireland it would appear this was more intense. For example, when the Papal Nuncio to England visited Downpatrick on pilgrimage in 1529, he couldn't leave the house because thousands of people had gathered around the door and had actually ripped off his cloak and staff as relics "because they understood me to be the representative of the Pope. Truly there is no more pious nation in all of Christendom than this kingdom". There appears to be some tension here between the monastic character of Irish spirituality (including the emphasis on mortifications) and the absolute respect for papal primacy. Ordinarily, "veneraration of the papacy" is rooted intellectually in Catholic ecclesiology - it shaped the journey of converts like Newman and St. Ignatius (NB: Ignatius was not a convert strictly speaking, but his life has a convert's trajectory) and, one could argue, St. Augustine. From what you write it I sense in Ireland it may had a different character. Experience seems to be elevated over doctrine, at least to some degree (maybe I am misreading). Given the scene you describe, it's difficult for me to understand how Irish Catholicism didn't veer completely off the rails into heresy. Or maybe these two aspects (experience and doctrine) were deeply intertwined?
"Unlike other parts of Europe, Ireland retained a deep fascination with hermetical life." - I am fascinated with this idea and am going to start a separate discussion about it. 2. If the language spoken overwhelmingly shapes the spiritual outlook of a people, how do you account for the overwhelming piety so many Irish immigrants, many (most?) of whom who were raised for the immigrant ship as exclusively English-speakers, brought to the New World?Irish remained the majority language of Ireland until the Famine. The vast majority of people who left Ireland in the nineteenth century either were Irish speaking, or whose Parents were Irish speaking. Even until the 1950's - 1960's the vast bulk of the Irish population were only two or three generations separated from the Gaelic cultural paradigm. It would be completely understandable that in such a short time the faith they held would be similar to their Irish speaking ancestors. Couple that with the focus on Catholicism as the primary factor of identity and the intense victorian religiosity fostered by the devotional revolution of the late nineteenth century and you have the perfect explanation of the overwhelming piety of Irish immigrants to the USA in the first half of the twentieth century. Your explanation here makes perfect sense. Thank you for all this fine information. This subject could inspire several PhD theses.
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 8, 2017 10:16:33 GMT
The thing about the English Reformation is that it presented itself as a restoration of the "primitive" Church, so it was not actually presenting Protestantism as something new but rather something very venerable indeed. That's not to say that anyone need have swallowed that and certainly it would have been a hard sell in a country as steeped in monasticism as Ireland. Ah but thats just the thing, they did present it as a return to the primitive church free from Roman errors in Ireland. There was distinctive attempts to present St. Patrick as an Anglican and they attempted to use examples from Irish history of royal interference in the Church as evidence of the Royal Supremacy. Needless to say, it didnt work here as it did in England and Wales. "It didn't work" - finally it's worked here and more. Do you trace the mass apostasy of Ireland today directly to the loss of the Irish language? Roger Buck has written about the destructive influence of "the Anglosphere" on Ireland's Catholic Culture.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jun 8, 2017 10:55:35 GMT
Many, many thanks for listening to me TWICE (!) Maolsheachlann. Beyond that, I may not say too much as yet, for all the reasons I said before - how daunting it is to go into and how little time I have. Also, I think I find myself in the same position, as you here: I realize I'm just repeating stuff I've said to you already, and it might even sound like I haven't taken on board your points in the voicemail, but....well, to be honest, I find myself in the same place, even after listening carefully. I think I might be in danger of repeating myself too much. But let me say this, I didn't expect to convince you to be in a different place. And although it's repetitive, let me say again, for me, all this is about the essence here, rather than particulars. So if GKC proposes revolution as you say, that's a particular for me. Or if Belloc goes down an autocratic route - as he tragically did - that also a particular. It's not that those things are not important - they are. One must digest them all. But to me, what I'm calling "particulars" take nothing away from the MORAL BEAUTY of Belloc and Chesteron's compassion for the poor, for their pouring their lifeblood into working for alternatives to Capitalism which they saw both destroying the poor and also destroying Christian culture. In all of that, they may have both gone down numerous blind alleys. Those blind alleys are regrettable and we have much to learn from them. But for me they take nothing away from their pierced, aching hearts and their pouring out their lifeblood because of what their hearts felt. On top of that - more repetition! - Belloc's life journey from youthful full-throttled apologist for the French Revolution to disillusioned MP to pioneering Distributist to some kind of monarchism seems to me profound, harrowingly existential and yielding potent, providential fruit - all of which, again for me, goes far, far deeper than notions that you and certainly others also have about "sour grapes". But, friend, I don't expect to convince you of any of that! I respect the careful, pragmatic way you're thinking about this. And also the way you love GKC but also challenge him in your mind. I see you carefully thinking for yourself. A great thing! So, I'm not so much trying to argue with you, as I am more making a statement about ME. More and more I see this as being at the very CORE of my whole life: the essential journey of the Chesterbelloc, born of their bleeding HEARTS ...
|
|
|
Post by seaininmacbradaigh on Jun 8, 2017 14:02:51 GMT
There appears to be some tension here between the monastic character of Irish spirituality (including the emphasis on mortifications) and the absolute respect for papal primacy. Ordinarily, "veneraration of the papacy" is rooted intellectually in Catholic ecclesiology - it shaped the journey of converts like Newman and St. Ignatius (NB: Ignatius was not a convert strictly speaking, but his life has a convert's trajectory) and, one could argue, St. Augustine. From what you write it I sense in Ireland it may had a different character. Experience seems to be elevated over doctrine, at least to some degree (maybe I am misreading). Given the scene you describe, it's difficult for me to understand how Irish Catholicism didn't veer completely off the rails into heresy. Or maybe these two aspects (experience and doctrine) were deeply intertwined?
"Unlike other parts of Europe, Ireland retained a deep fascination with hermetical life." - I am fascinated with this idea and am going to start a separate discussion about it. Let me begin with clarifying one thing: Ireland maintained an almost fanatical devotion to the Papacy. There is no doubt about that. Synods were constantly referring matters to Rome. So much so as to draw irritation from Rome on a number of occasions. From the surviving accounts of the decoration of Irish churches, St. Peter was always placed on the Gospel side of the door of Irish rood screens, the most prominent and important position and more Irish churches and monasteries were under the dedication of Sts. Peter and Paul than any other dedication, including the Virgin, which is in stark contrast to the rest of Europe and is noteworthy about Ireland. The Irish preoccupation with aestheticism, mortification and the so called "exile for Christ" has deep and ancient roots and probably came from the close links the Irish church had (bizarrely)with the Eastern churches, particularly those of Antioch and Alexandria in the earliest centuries of its formation. This is evidenced by the number of early manuscripts found in Ireland from the Golden Age that are strikingly close to Coptic and Syriac manuscripts of the same age. Most recently, the Faddan More Psalter is a particularly fine example of this close connection to the east. The influence of the East is probably to explain for the strange eclectic mix that was native Irish Catholicism. Experience was elevated over doctrine to a large extent but perhaps most distinctively it was the criterion of aestheticism and deprivation of the body that singled out personal holiness and to an extent, a theologian. In this the Irish church was close to the East. Whilst generally in the west a theologian was simply someone who studied theology and was considered a great theologian through their writings, this would appear to have been fairly different in Ireland. To have studied theology was considered irrelevant, what mattered more was the "experience" or insight of sanctity as attained through deprivation and aestheticism. Thus all the great theological teachers of Ireland prior to the conquest are hermits or aesthetes, and even after the final conquest of the seventeenth century, the most prestigious teachers tended to be Franciscans rather than Dominicans, probably as a result of this underlying idea that personal deprivation resulted in sanctity and thus an insight into the Divine. This idea that was so central to the particular flavour of native Catholicism has survived to an extent in our two greatest shrines: Lough Derg and Croagh Patrick, both of which are penitential in character. That being said, the Irish church was in no way dismissive of doctrine. The writings of St. Gregory "the golden mouthed", St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, Greek Fathers and the Fathers of the Desert were studied extensively. On this point I am reminded of a humorous anecdote: So much did the Irish revere St. Gregory and St. John Chrysostom that they became convinced that they were in fact Irish and were in fact descended from the Corca Dhuibhne in Kerry! Seriously though, the Law was rigorously applied. An examination, however brief, of the "Penitentials" makes this blatantly obvious. The smallest misdemeanour was harshly punished and this often raised the eyes of European visitors. This tendency was sometimes misapplied to cultural misdemeanors that were considered deeply wrong in Ireland but completely fine elsewhere. A story I remember here is of a French merchant who visited the Ó Neill in the late fifteenth century. At the banquet he presented the usual wine and cloth in tribute to the Prince of Ulster but he also presented delicacies of France. It was all well received until he presented cured horse meat. Once the merchant mentioned that it was horsemeat the assembly fell quiet with the exception of the clerics who fell into a rage and labelled him a heretic and a pagan. The chaplain suggested that he immediately make his way to Coleraine where there was a miraculous statue of the Virgin as penance for eating, and suggesting others eat, horse meat. This demonstrates that Irish clerics occasionally elevated local customs to the status of doctrine but this is an outlier. For the most part, the Irish church was completely in line with the teachings of the faith. In the interest of complete disclosure though there were two aspects of the Irish church which drew ire from the Roman authorities and shock from travellers from other parts of Christendom; they being the laws surrounding celibacy and marriage. Irish priests were almost universally "married", right until the Reformation and afterwards. Monks, Friars and Hermits never were and a priest who was married had to leave his wife to become a bishop. In this the Irish were very close to Eastern practice and to other areas of Latin Christendom on the peripheries such as Norway, Bohemia and Illyria. Likewise, the dissolution of marriage was a feature of Irish life right until the end of the Gaelic order. This is particularly true of the nobility who were in most cases married several times. One must be careful here though, the marriage law of what actually constituted a valid marriage in the medieval west was very undefined. A valid marriage needed only the consent of both parties and consummation, this could be done without the presence of a priest and could occasionally be contracted without witnesses. Irish law makes a distinction between a secular marriage, a match made for dynastic or political/economic reasons without the blessing of the Church (which could be dissolved) and a "Holy marriage" made before a cleric in a church before witnesses which could never be dissolved legally. Furthermore, the realities of the Gaelic order and the Clan system made it difficult to enforce the Church's teachings on the forbidden degrees of marriage, which were much stricter in the medieval era than after Trent. So in these it would appear the Irish church was a bit unhinged and it is for this reason why many travellers to Ireland were absolutely puzzled by the evident piety of the people but the dominance of peculiar customs that were in contravention of the teachings of the Church, and it was precisely for this reason why many commentators labelled Ireland as "savage" and "barbaric". What must be remembered however is that Irish preoccupation with antiquity and respect for age. A great many of these laws and customs either were survivals from Paganism, or were compromises found in the earliest centuries of the foundation of the faith here. The laws surrounding clerical celibacy for example were only introduced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Deviation from the teachings, the traditions as given by the first generation of saints was absolute taboo and only came incredibly slowly. Think here of St. Columbanus who criticised and admonished the Pope himself for the Roman method of calculating Easter. It was this fossilization of the Irish church that allowed many of these customs to survive. They certainly didn't believe that they were in contravention of the teachings of the Church but rather they saw them as an Irish peculiarity. The crucial thing to remember is that medieval Latin Christendom was a house of many mansions. Secular laws and customs diverged from Church teachings across regions but the faith of the Church was universal even if the practice and expression of the faith differed from place to place. The clergy sometimes tolerated these customs as a means of preserving peace, good will or simply because they had no other choice but they were never considered orthodox or valid. In this Ireland was no different. The Irish bishops repeatedly condemned the divergences from the teachings of the Church in Synod after Synod but change only came slowly as a part of the gradual transformation of Europe from a pagan continent to a Christian one.
|
|
|
Post by seaininmacbradaigh on Jun 8, 2017 14:23:46 GMT
Ah but thats just the thing, they did present it as a return to the primitive church free from Roman errors in Ireland. There was distinctive attempts to present St. Patrick as an Anglican and they attempted to use examples from Irish history of royal interference in the Church as evidence of the Royal Supremacy. Needless to say, it didnt work here as it did in England and Wales. "It didn't work" - finally it's worked here and more. Do you trace the mass apostasy of Ireland today directly to the loss of the Irish language? Roger Buck has written about the destructive influence of "the Anglosphere" on Ireland's Catholic Culture. I would be broadly in agreement with Mr. Buck. The anglosphere is, in my humble opinion, irredeemable. The cultural rot is too deep now for it to be salvaged. I know it sounds very pessimistic but I've studied cultures around the world and modern Anglo-American culture is by far the most debauched and depraved. This wont come as a shock but I heartily recommend Gaelicisation as a means of combatting the rot that has taken hold in our culture. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that maintenance of the Irish language would have saved Ireland from apostasy in the modern era. In reality, there isn't much any culture can do in the face of a clergy bent on heresy and apostasy across the Church. Ireland's apostasy is more fuelled by the devastating scandals that occurred here. Though, that said, the house was rotten before the scandals emerged. Had we retained Irish as the ordinary vernacular of the majority of the population then things wouldn't have been so far gone. Ireland probably would be in the position of Malta. A strong under current of Catholic culture that keeps the whole edifice standing for some time longer. I think the heresies of the sixties would have been much reduced in damage. Had the writings of modernist heretics required translation by the Irish clergy prior to publication their content would have been tamed quite a bit. Unfortunately we underwent a period direct contamination culturally and theologically from England and the USA which was followed by revelations of deep corruption and sinfulness on the part of the clergy. Even Irish Catholicism couldn't withstand that, nowhere could.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 8, 2017 14:53:28 GMT
I don't agree that the Anglosphere is depraved. Why do you say that? Let's remember that the Anglosphere is the part of the world that avoided totalitarianism when most of the rest of the world was going in for it, in the twentieth century.
I'm all for reviving the Irish language, though.
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 8, 2017 15:02:27 GMT
I don't agree that the Anglosphere is depraved. Why do you say that? Let's remember that the Anglosphere is the part of the world that avoided totalitarianism when most of the rest of the world was going in for it, in the twentieth century. I'm all for reviving the Irish language, though. That's an interesting question especially in light of the fact that in 2016 the Anglosphere gave the forces bent on destroying the West two big bloody noses with the counter-revolutionary wildcards BREXIT and Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 8, 2017 15:36:25 GMT
Brexit day was literally one of the happiest days of my thirty-nine years. I don't think anything in public life has ever made me happier. I never believed it was possible.
|
|