Bon Voyage

out of interest, did anyone else here only read about the last ten posts?!

way too much excess stamina about.

Just one correction to something I said:

The B of C prayer was not written in Latin, at least not declared the official version. It was in English, although there was a Latin version (at least I found one when I was in college). Also, at first – whent he whole system has not been completely changed – some sections of the english liturgy were still said in Latin (by those priests whose native language was not English, etc.)

Still, why make a Latin version when they knew that it was the Sacred language of the Church – the True One, of course!?

isn’t it poor form to support a catholic re-reading of history with an older catholic re-reading of history?

Not sure why it would be poor form, unless you assume that, because Belloc was Catholic, he is therefore incapable of offering a true account of British history. Based on that reasoning, no Anglican could offer a true account of British history either, because his religion would color everything.

it’s not quite the same, since anglicanism *has* coloured everything (in last 500 years).

plus, i thought this was a revisionist reading that puts catholicism above anglicanism? surely one’s catholicism is at least a complication in making that kind of argument? a doubtful factor?

as i said, i’m not really bothered, and fear i won’t be able to take part in a debate like the one above. no time!

Ah, but your comments reveal you’ve bought into Anglican triumphalism, just as CAWP has. You assume it’s Catholic “revisionist” history, that is to say, an incorrect rewriting of history according to the Catholic perspective, when in fact it may very well be the case that it is the Anglicans who’ve revised history so thoroughly and for so long that their version has been swallowed wholesale by the majority of the British.

Er, okay.

i really meant that anglicanism’s had an important effect in the last 500 years (i.e. since reformation), an effect which catholicism can’t have had, if you see, because it was banned.

i don’t really care about the minefield of revisionism, since i think it goes in circles after a point – without really plumbing down the depths of the facts, we can always accuse the other side of being one more revisionist step behind us. i do worry about how sane it is to claim the entirety (or a lot) of british history has inaccurately been written against the catholics, tho; i mean, that assumes a pretty big burden of proof. can’t we find a happy medium? perhaps they have been excluded, but it’s extraordinary to try and do the same this time around to the protestants.

anyway. andrew has some lovely new posts everyone.

i really meant that anglicanism’s had an important effect in the last 500 years (i.e. since reformation), an effect which catholicism can’t have had, if you see, because it was banned.

That goes without saying. As to your wondering how sane it is to question the Anglican version of Reformation history, how would you respond as a British citizen (I’m assuming you are one) to the American version of the Revolutionary War (you know how it goes: the Brits were wicked for taxing the colonies without representation)? This is the version, after all, which is taught in all the public schools since the founding of our country, the version the majority of Americans accept. Would you say it’s accurate? Would it be “sane” to question it? And if you did question it, are you simply a biased revisionist historian with an agenda, because you happen to be British?

the analogy doesn’t quite work. it’s not as if britain is still in a battle for the continent of america; but catholicism is certainly out to conquer anglicanism and england (cf. gummer mp’s recent attempts to change constitution; cf. anglo-catholics and vatican attempts to officialise some anglican-roman rite, etc, etc.) obviously not in any drastic way: but the contestation between the two is still live, something that cannot be said about american and britain.

it’s interesting you should mentioned the american revolution: as a new book, ‘George III, America’s Last King’ shows, that whole period of history is both what the americans have sold it as, and the opposite; a confused mix, as most of these things are. so it would be wrong to go either way: each would exclude some of the truth.

Oh, come now, JA, that is a disingenuous reply. History and its proper understanding always matter, regardless of the fact that America and Britain are no longer at war. As to your concern that Catholicism is out to “conquer” England–well, you certainly show your true colors in that sentiment. You needn’t worry; Catholics aren’t out to conquer any nation by force, and hardly one that still forbids its monarchs from marrying “papists”.

In any case, I agree we’re going in circles, so it’s probably time we moved on. You can have the last word; I’ll end here.

oh, i didn’t mean conquer like that. rather a loaded word, i suppose.

i meant that catholicism does claim supremacy and superiority; and that it is still in – as i said – live contestation with the claims of anglicanism. hence historical interpretation of the two religious movements is still politicised by the modern day, in ways which the american revolutionary war isn’t quite (tho national identity, etc comes into it there is a confidence in that which allows re-examination).

gummer, the anglican rite, and things like the vatican asking permission to hold mass in anglican churches and cathedrals (usually held once a month, i believe, in places like canterbury, college chapels, etc), would suggest that this contestation between catholicism and anglicanism is, however, by no means purely academic.

i am not under any conviction that the jesuits are afoot with devious plans again, nor that spain sets sail in the morning, or anything else like that! but i do think that these interpretations matter for practical reasons still.

i only really care about the history, not so much about fights between protestants and catholics. i do apologise for having given that impression.