Flavius Honorius Augustus. Western Roman Emperor from 395 to 423.

John William Waterhouse - The Favorites of the Emperor Honorius - 1883.

"At that time they say that the Emperor Honorius in Ravenna received the message from one of the eunuchs, evidently a keeper of the poultry, that Rome had perished. And he cried out and said, 'And yet it has just eaten from my hands!' For he had a very large cock, Rome by name; and the eunuch comprehending his words said that it was the city of Rome which had perished at the hands of Alaric, and the emperor with a sigh of relief answered quickly: 'But I thought that my fowl Rome had perished.' So great, they say, was the folly with which this emperor was possessed." Procopius, The Vandalic War (III.2.25–26) 

To what extent was the Reformation caused by the failings of the Catholic Church?



The Reformation was not merely about jurisdictions, or even about the best way to reform the Church: such quarrels had happened before, had caused mayhem, and then the wounds had been healed.[1] In answering this essay question it is necessary to explore the hopes and fears dominating Christendom in the 15^th century. It is not merely a simple case that the Catholic Church was a rotting edifice ready to topple. At the beginning of the 16th century everyone that mattered in the Western Church was crying out for reformation.[2]

The Reformation was a popular movement that sprang up from the desire for a revitalised Christianity- a Christianity that had a simpler form of religious practice, an educated clergy, and greater lay participation in the Church. There was a desire for a form of Christian ethics based on scripture, and that these ethics were applied to the ordering of secular life. It should be noted that the movement in the sense of a popular movement, rather than a schismatic sect, began primarily, in the imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire, (The power of state government was also on the rise in England under Henry VIII, Spain under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, their control came from the fact that they were much more powerful than their predecessors. The government though not modern was becoming a little more modern). These cities were under the direct control of the Emperor, thus they attained a style of virtual self –governance, akin to city state republics of Italy.[3] The imperial cities already had historical traditions of lay independence and collective responsibility for the welfare of citizens. Therefore this in turn encouraged the townsfolk to take charge of their own salvation. This goes a long way to explain why the theological messages expounded by Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were so well received. The teachings of the reformation spread rapidly due to the invention of the printing press, which made it possible for the ordinary common man, to grasp the ideas of the Reformation movement. The great diatribes may have first started in Latin, for example the 95 thesis of Martin Luther, but they would have been translated into the common tongue and distributed to the people. The movement emanated from the cities but quickly spread to the countryside, where again it was well received by the common man. This was not due to a sense of theological outrage at the practices of the Catholic Church; rather it was the appeal to social justice which could be found in the theology as propagated by the reformers. [4]Certainly this would lead to revolutionary unrest, such as the German Peasants War of 1524. This was not however a reaction to the Catholic Church- this was a response to the radical ideas that flowed from the reformation. The peasants were more reactive to the Reformation, whereas the nobility were somewhat cautious; this is unsurprising given the involvement of the nobility in the higher levels of the pre-Reformation Church. Yet as the power of the prince was increasing and the power of the Pope decreasing, Church reformers looked to the government for effective power to reform.  Were the ideas new? And just how culpable is the Catholic Church towards the Reformation?

It would have been easy for thinkers in the year 1500 to explain in practical and definitive terms as to what they meant when they expounded the need for reform in the Church. The theoretical authority of the Pope might need to be diminished, but in fact that authority was already limited by the rights of various government states. For example the traditions as already mentioned, of the Imperial Cities. The sale of benefices, agreed by everyone to be deplorable, might be justifiable to the running of a legal system. It is fair to say that what one honest man believed to be an abuse, another honest man defended. Everyone wanted reform of some description, or at least professed to want reform. The question of how to reform and what to reform was not so clear. There had been an Ecumenical Council that sat in the Lateran Church in Rome from 1512 to 1517, which had agreed amongst other things that schism and heresy should be suppressed; that the Turks were a danger to the Christian nation- even though the idea of a united Christendom was collapsing with the rise of the states; that bishops should have more power over monks, and that no one could preach except by lawful authority. It is clear then that there was some sort of reforming spirit within the Church hierarchy, but it was certainly not recognised by some as a full reformation of the head and the body of the Church. Throughout Europe there was a diversified view as to how the Church might be reformed. For the Italians it meant diminishing the power of the College of Cardinals; for Friars it meant the reform of their congregation’s lives, more along the lines of the ideals of Christian sanctity; for secular lawyers it meant the reform of ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical exemptions for a more effective administration. Chadwick quite clearly sums it up as follows: “When people of the Church spoke about reformation, they were almost always thinking of administrative, legal, or moral reformation; hardly ever doctrinal reformation.”[5] The Pope’s doctrine was not seen to be erroneous, as the development of Martin Luther’s theological thinking can testify to, but it was in the thoughts of churchmen that the legal system and the bureaucracy hindered efficiency, bred injustice, immorality, and worldliness.

 Humanists of the Renaissance,(who were as varied as possible, who had little in common except their love of classical antiquity, southern European humanism was philosophical, artistic, and literary whereas northern humanism was religious, even theological), those great thinkers and proponents of academic reform also wanted intellectual improvement within the Church. They wanted bishops to be less secularized, monks to practice their rule, (Erasmus, In Praise of folly)[6], and parish clergy to be more instructed. Erasmus, “The Prince of the Humanists”, lambasted the papacy for ostentatious living, pursuit of power and failure to imitate Christ. Even though his orthodoxy would become suspect, he was always loyal to the church. Some such as Chadwick[7] have suggested that they had no desire to implement such change, however if we look at the example of Erasmus, the purposes of his writings was to make the church aware of the need for reform and to encourage the kind of reform that would make the faith more meaningful to the laity. Erasmus attacked all forms of hypocrisy wherever he found it. He emphasized a biblical faith based on the gospel and inner piety rather than outward ceremonies. Therefore can humanism be seen as a contributing factor to the reformation, more so than the failings of the Catholic Church? Although it has long been argued that humanism, especially the humanism of Erasmus helped prepare the way for the reformation, Girolamo Aleander, the papal envoy at the imperial court, once stated that Erasmus had done more damage to the church than Luther- Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched is attributed to him. Some historians have questioned this[8]. There is no doubt that the tools of the reformers were attributes of the humanists but there are fundamental differences between them, the most important being theology. After the reformation some humanists sided with the reformers, others did not. Humanism seems to have appealed in a less universal way than the Catholic faith. Humanism appealed largely to the educated minority rather than the masses. Although humanists stressed reform through education it was not likely to bring widespread reform, and as humanism was varied, as I said previously, I do not agree with the idea that Humanism was a prelude to the reformation.

The upper classes, the rulers, and the merchants were beginning to be better educated. The presses were working, the printers were multiplying, and libraries were increasing. The printing press made it possible to study manuscripts as was never possible before. Textual analysis and textual comparison were leading to new forms of study. Knowledge was increasing as more people were reading books. Great powers were being established in Europe and around these more effective governments was the idea of the nation,  this was quite different to the idea of a united Christian Europe, the half-conscious and yet patriotic loyalty of their people. The relation between this and the success of the reformation is without doubt, but it is difficult to define. A more efficient government could only be an effective administration with restraints on papal intervention, on ecclesiastical privilege and exemptions, but this did happen before 1500. Hopes and fears abounded between 1490 and 1517 and these also contributed to the reformation cause. The biggest fear was that Christendom might disappear altogether and there was constant worry of Islamic aggression from the east. It is impossible to understand the mood of sixteenth century Europe without bearing in mind the deep anxiety inspired by the Ottoman Empire. This was also coupled with the idea that the end of days was at hand. Preachers such as Girolamo Savonarola 1452-1498, could call for radical political and moral reform, in the name of God. Apocalyptic literature was also in circulation. For example, “Apocalypsia Nova”, (New Account of the Last Days), is claimed to have been written by a Portuguese Franciscan Friar, Amadeus Menezes da Silva. This book predicted the coming of an Angelic Pastor or Pope, who would be heralded by spiritual men. The crucial task was to identify these characters, and that was difficult. Already we can deduce that there was around the time directly before the reformation, and in my view one of the key causes of the reformation, a neo-messianic hope. It may have been propagated by a minority, but it explains as to why the European laity were so receptive to the idea of reformation, rather than the idea that they were fed up with the failings of the Church.

So, to what extent can the failings of the Catholic Church be the cause of the reformation? The Catholic Church is not the only reason that the reformation occurred. Indeed it was not just the failings of the Church, for as I have said, the whole of Europe wanted some sort of reformation, yet it was so vague an idea that they did not know how to go about it. Humanism and, “New Learning”, the advancement of the printing press, the decline of the constantinian model of government, as embodied in the idea of Christendom, and the rise of a more administrative secular government, all prefaced the reformation. To what extent did the failings of the Catholic Church lead to the Reformation? Well it depends on the word failings. We have seen in this essay that yes there were numerous abuses that reformers outside of the theological spectrum wished to address, but these abuses cannot be called fallings. However the Catholic Church was not particularly failing in its role in the society of the sixteenth century. We should not underestimate European laypeople. They were perfectly able to think for themselves about religion. Ordinary people simply drew their own conclusions about the Church and yet despite all the abuses the church was seen as the great unifier, up until the reformation.

Coypright: Numenorian Exile 2012

[1] Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700 (London: Penguin,  2004)p52

[2] Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (London: Pelican, 1964)p1

[3] Bob Scribner, “Religion, Society and Culture: Reorientating the Reformation”, History Workshop 14 (1982)p4

[4] Mark Tranvick, trans., Martin Luther’s On the Freedom of a Christian (Fortress Press, 2008)

[5] Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (London: Pelican, 1964)p13

[6] Denis R. Janz, A Reformation Reader (Augsburg: Fortress, 2008)p61“Almost as happy as the theologians are those men who are commonly called “religious” and “monks” though both names are quite incorrect, since a good part of them are very far removed from religion”

[7] Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (London: Pelican, 1964)p14

[8] Rudolph W. Heinz, Reform and Conflict (London: Monarch, 2006)p63

---



Ulster Covenant Update.

Numenorian Exile's Ancestor has signed-

Numenorian Exile is delighted to find that his late Great-Grandmother's father has signed.  This means that Numenorian Exile  is at the very least 5th Generation Belfastian. 

A Relic of the Past?

The Solemn League and Covenant of Ulster.




Many, many families across Northern Ireland will have this document, either proudly on display, locked away safely, or in the attic, gathering dust and long forgotten.  This year is the 100th year of the signing of the Covenant, many who signed it, (including members of this Numenorian Exile), marched to Belfast City Hall, (and other places across Ulster, including those counties that now form part of the Republic of Ireland), and signed it with their blood. It was the turning point in Irish history and as every good schoolboy knows it was the Unionist reaction to the Home Rule Crisis. The document itself is a fantastic statement for the reader, it mixes political ideology, religious language, and economic worries.


Is it now however a relic of the past? I personally think that it is, given the current situation or rather, (as it is popularly called these days in political circles) the "Northern Ireland Project", 100 years on and we are still part of the Union, the link has been retained, so in that respect the Covenant has been fulfilled. It is interesting to note that it is called a "covenant", when one thinks of covenant our minds instantly return to the Hebrew Bible, God and Noah, Abraham and God etc.. this was the point, this covenant when signed (in blood or ink), was to be treated in the same manner, it was a sacred bond between the signer and his maker, hence the emotive religious language used within it.


As the link has remained unbroken that means that the Covenant has been fulfilled? Does that mean that perhaps it is time for a new Covenant? A Covenant for the Northern Ireland Project as it were?


That would be rather interesting, a new Covenant, perhaps along the lines of, "Being convinced that we are all good people we shall henceforth live in peace with each other, regardless of class, colour and creed". In saying that I doubt it would have many signers.

One of my Historical Heroes.

Napoleon I Emperor of the French

King of Italy

(1769-1821)

Napoleon as First Consul of the Republic, (Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres)

                                                     Napoleon after his coronation as Emperor of the French.

                                               Napoleon as Emperor of the French

                                            Napoleon as King of Italy

Napoleon and his issue.

Titanic : Is that a sinking sound I can hear ?

Titanic Memorial, Belfast City Hall. This marble figure was designed by Sir Thomas Brock, (designer of many well known monuments, including the Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace), it depicts Thane, the Goddess of Death. A very fine memorial it was unveiled in 1920.

The sinking of RMS Titanic occurred on the night of the 14/15th of April 1912 in the North Atlantic Ocean, four days into her maiden voyage. The ship as every Belfast Boy knows, was built in the great shipyard of Harland and Wolf, by, but not exclusively, the working class men of East Belfast. A great achievement by the master craftsmen of that by gone era.

Attending Primary School in Belfast, a stones throw from, "The Yard", (Colloquial term for the shipyard), we were taught the glory of that achievement, she was the largest ship, she was the fastest ship, she was built by the graft and labour of Belfast men, she was ours, and she was glorious, twas a sad day when she sank. Indeed no one in their right frame of mind could deny any of these statements, indeed it is right and proper that we should remember such a monumental achievement in our history, and that it is my point, we should remember, but we should no cash in on it, as seems to be the fashion in Northern Ireland these days!

I am well aware that it is the centenary year of that cataclysmic event, but I think that there are things going on, quite stupendously  insensitive things that really rather annoy me. Firstly, it does not matter that this is the 100th Anniversary, because for as long as I can remember, BBC Newsline, UTV, The Belfast Telegraph, and others, (those listed are the chief protagonists), always, without fail, on a regular basis include some trashy piece of media news relating to the Titanic, and to be frank, people are fed up with it.

Here are some examples-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/titanic_will_be_bigger_than_the_olympics_1_3428826

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/plaque_honours_titanic_orphan_1_3501585

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/titanic_explorer_in_city_visit_1_3201989

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/titanic_relics_surface_for_first_time_in_ulster_1_2669181

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/titanic_expert_remembered_1_1840414

I know, I know, "this is but one source Noble Knight", I hear you cry, well to be frank, this is only the tip of the ice-berg, (pardon the pun), for you see this deluge infects the whole of the media in Northern Ireland, and I think that it is high time it stopped, I believe that after this year the whole thing should be dropped, although I know that is not going to happen, too much money has been invested in the Titanic regeneration project in Belfast's docklands, but honestly I don't think that it will serve the community that built her any good! Would the money not be better invested in developing apprenticeship schemes in that area for the hearty descendent of the master craftsmen that built her? Rather than empty office suites and "Yuppie" apartments? Obviously not, casing in on a tragedy and filling the coffers of the Irish Tourist board is far more important.

"Oh Noble Knight, it will be good for the economy, think of all those tourists with money to burn", yes quite, but having spoken to tourists who have visited the waste ground where it was built, it seems that it was somewhat an anticlimax for them. "Oh Noble Knight, we will build a museum", yes fair enough but I don't see why there must also be a leisure complex attached to that, what next bouncy icebergs and a slide for children in the shape of the sinking liner? It's sounds fantastical, I know, but I would not put it past the folks of Belfast City Council.

Even worse, the creme de la creme of it all, Dr Phillip Hammond has composed a Requiem Mass for the lost souls of the Titanic, to be performed in Latin in St Anne's Cathedral Belfast, I am a lover of music and I enjoy a Mass, (from time to time, particularly if they are Papal, the Vatican puts on the greatest show on earth as far as I am concerned), but this is ridiculous, why it has to be in Latin, a language that the majority of people who died on the doomed ship, and the people who built the majestic liner, did not speak! I have heard some drivel in my time, but this takes the biscuit, of course I heard the usual self indulgent nonsense on BBC Radio Ulster's "Sunday Sequence", from the artist in question, such rubbish about doing it for the memory of the people. No !  you are, (let's be honest), doing it to sail on the Titanic Cash bonanza, rather like a gravy boat, except it stops more often and you can help yourself as many times as you like to the goodies up for grabs.

So will I buy the CD? No I think I would rather sing a Mariners hymn, "Eternal Father Strong to save", one that was sung on the ship and, "Nearer my God to Thee", non of this "confutatis maledictis" nonsense.

There is a great legacy that we would do well to remember, but not to the gross extent that seems to be going on around us. There are a great many other things that Belfast can offer!

Father of History or Father of Lies ? Herodotus

In choosing my title for this particular blog, I am reminded of an event which occurred during one of my many lectures, last week. The lecturer asked, "Herodotus was known as the father of .....", there was a silence, and then I bleated, "Lies", the lecturer chuckled, as did everyone else, but I was quite correct, for he, (the lecturer), confirmed that, yes indeed, the Romans called him the, "Father of Lies", everyone else of course knows him as, "The Father of History". I have always considered myself to be more Roman, in outlook, than Greek.

Timaeus, an ancient Greek historian, has written that, "the lack of truth was the greatest fault of history", he was convinced that his predecessors had not written history, and extorted them to call it something else. Lucian also expounds that it is the historians duty to, "tell the story as it happens". Of course the relationship between history and accuracy has always been open to interpretation. It was of course Cicero who gave Herodotus the title, "Father of History", he may then have acknowledged the fact that it is indeed open to interpretation. Cicero also believed that it was the duty of the historian to be accurate, anything else was, in his view to be left to the poets.  

"For in history everything is meant to lead to the truth, but in poetry a great deal is intended for pleasure--although in Herodotus, the Father of History, and in Theopompus, there are a countless number of legends.",

History was therefore to make pleasurable reading, and also to be factual at all times. The reputation of Herodotus, however, had the reputation of liar within a couple of generations of his death, yet was he still known as the Father of History. When Cicero wrote his, "De Divinatione", he accused the Father of History of outright invention. Despite this, no one in the ancient world sought to challenge the so called Father of History on his ,"Fabrications". 

It was not until the Renaissance that anyone pointed out the contradiction in the reputation of Herodotus. Petrarch pointed out that Cicero had called Herodotus, the Father of History, and of course the Father of History could not be accused of fabrication. This judgement showed the ambiguity of Herodotus reputation, rather more sharply than had been done, up to the present time. He started the historical tradition in the west, as a master of style, and as an artist, he delighted the audiences of antiquity, indeed when he was rediscovered in the Renaissance, it was a delight to scholars. However, at the same time he was treated as a story teller, who gives readers pleasure rather than truth, and he was accused of malice, deceit, and ignorance .

In 1842 Thomas de Quincy wrote an essay entitled, "The Philosophy of Herodotus", which attempted to explain the reputation of Herodotus. He produced the theory that the real problem was that people don't actually understand what Herodotus was trying to actually do in his work, "But whence arose the other mistake about Herodotus, that his great work was exclusively a history? It arose from a mistranslation, which subsists everywhere to this day" Historia, in the time of Herodotus, simply meant, "Enquiries", this will not do, historia does indeed mean research, in the time of Herodotus, not in our modern understanding, but the word soon picked up connotations that Herodotus was largely responsible for! The fact is that he, Herodotus did write history, no matter what he called it, and there is not mention by other ancients that he did not write anything but history.

There is a curious history regarding the reputation of Herodotus, it starts with Hellanicus and Thucydides. What Hellanicus thought of Herodotus, we do not know, although he was a historian of a different kind, a research scholar. For Hellanicus dates were most important. Thucydides never mentions Herodotus by name, but it is safe to assume that he disapproved of Herodotus. He contradicts Herodotus on a number of points, and his statement that his history was not a prized essay, but a procession of lasting value, sounds rather like an attack on Herodotus, later writers certainly thought so. Thucydides in his famous first book sets forth the creed of the historian, this goes in the face of the type of history that Herodotus wrote. Thcydides saw not future in the attempts of Herodotus to write history that he himself had not witnessed, or to tell the story's of men whose language he (Herodotus) could not speak. The historian had a more important task, to record events accurately as the human experienced them.

 In his account of the Peloponnesian  War Thucydides makes what can be described as a direct reproof against the historical product of Herodotus, "The absence of an element of romance in my account of what happened, may well  make it less attractive to listen to listen to, but all who wish to attain a clear view of the past, and also of the same or similar events which, human nature being what it is, will recur in the future--if these people consider my work useful, I shall be content. It is written to be a procession of lasting value, not a work competing for an immediate hearing"

Both Hellanicus and Thcydides left marks on the tradition of historiography, they have their successors, men such as Ephoros, (for Hellanicus), and Xenophan follows in the tradition of Thcydides. Who were the descendants of Herodotus ? There was one of some importance, Ctesias of Cindos the Greek physician of the Persian king Artaxerxes II, who is best know for his attacks on the veracity of Herodotus, yet he himself relied heavily on Herodotus. Herodotus follows the style of Homer, and Ctesias is the final flowering of that school of history, untouched by the teachings of Thucydides. The school was degenerate, it had no moral purpose, and was influenced by propaganda and fraud. 

It is necessary for us to recognise that from the early Hellenistic period, Herodotus did not suffer, as Ctesias did, of being classified as an entertaining liar. He suffered far worse, he was attacked by a whole series of essays designed to expose his falsehoods, and his plagiarisms. "Herodotus is attacked by everyone without exception", wrote Josephus.  

Falkland Islanders say Argentina is waging and economic war.

This week I will be adding the Falkland Islands to my daily prayers, far be it from me to engage in political debate, yet I know that Argentina is in the wrong.

There are political mind games, going on, and as usual people are suffering, I will remember the Parish of the Falkland Islands in my prayers.

Mrs Fernandez Kirchner, a bitch ?

http://www.penguin-news.com/  

Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands

Wonderful News For Belfast.

One of Belfast's most iconic buildings, a building that I have admired, a building  that I have moaned about for years, (due to it's condition), has been given a £400,000 lifeline, three long decades after it's congregation left.

Carlisle Memorial Methodist Church stands on the edge of inner city Belfast, it stands at what is called an interface area, the building is cathedral like in proportions, and it's design is pure Gothic Revival. It is a wonderful addition to the ecclesiastical skyline of the city, with it's domineering spire, it's Gothic arches, and glorious scared architecture.

The Church, built from 1868 to 1875, was designed by the architect William Henry Lynn, (Lynn is responsible for the design of many of the prominent buildings of Belfast, one of his last designs was for the baptistry of St Anne's Cathedral, circa 1915), and was once home to a thriving Methodist congregation. Due to the change in demographics of the area, throughout that time in Belfast's history known as "The Troubles", the congregation fell into decline and since 1982 the building has not been used as a place of worship.

Alex Attwood MLA has quite rightly called the building, "A jewel in our historical crown", and it's preservation fills me with much joy, I hope that the building will be used for something good in that area, for it is a troubled area, and has a bloody history, despite it's religious associations, the building is now perceived as neutral territory in a deeply polarised area and holds symbolic potential for North Belfast.

Visit to Glasgow Cathedral.

Glasgow Cathedral, also called the High Kirk of Glasgow, also called the Cathedral of St Kentigern, also called the Cathedral of St Mungo, is located quite near to Buchanan Street Bus Station, which gave me ample opportunity to explore it, when I had some time to kill between buses.

I had no idea how to get to the Cathedral, I asked a local chap, who worked at the bus station, ho to get to it. He had no idea, although he suggested that it may be along Cathedral Street, which as chance would have it, it was. I was delighted to approach the building from the direction of Cathedral Street, because one could clearly make out the Gothic spire in the distance. I was, to say the least, rather stunned when I approached this gloriously Gothic building, for I did not expect to find such a jewel in Glasgow, but be assured, dear reader, that the area in which the Cathedral is situated, leaves one in no doubt, that this is a "Reformed area", before you even reach the Cathedral doors, you are greeted with the "John Knox" museum, I did not venture in on this occasion, but I will be sure to put my beak in, the next time I have a chance. High above the hill behind the Cathedral is Glasgow Necropolis, on the summit of the hill is the "John Knox Memorial", in style rather similar to Nelson's Column, London. There he stands, the great Reformer, atop a perch peering down at the medieval Cathedral, inspiring Protestant thought, and defending the people from Catholic tendencies.

I walked slowly to the front of the Cathedral, the first thing one notices, is that there appears to be a lot of regeneration work on the outside of the Cathedral, for scaffolding and builders are there in abundance. I noted that above the main door, the West door, there appeared to be a portal, that displayed vandalism of the Reformation era, for you would expect to see in this portal, at least Christ in majesty with the just on one side, and the dammed on the other, not so on this particular façade, for it appears that hammer and chisel have taken that away.  It is at this point that I should add, that although I ma referring to the building as a Cathedral, it is not a cathedral, for it does not contain the throne of Bishop, rather the term Cathedral is used in it's historical context, for the building once was a Cathedral, indeed it is said to contain the tomb of St Mungo, "Ora pro Nobis", the alleged tomb serves as an altar in the crypt chapel, indeed I prayed there, in that most ancient of places.

I entered the Cathedral form the south side, and I was walked in, I was struck by the sheer space inside, I did not ask the Presbyterian in the Blue Geneva "ish" gown, to guide me, for I have an understanding of the places, and I knew where I wanted to go. First to the High Altar, then to the Sacristy, then to the crypt. Indeed the place was stunning, beautiful, magisterial, one could feel the centuries of Christian inspired worship in this place. The High Altar is beautiful, a shame that it is not used for it's intended purpose, then down I went to the crypt, which is worth visiting alone, for it is resplendent with medieval Gothic arches, ancient pillars, and all the glories of that past era, no wonder Sir Walter Scott wrote about in his novel of Rob Roy, indeed I would not be surprised to learn that the building somehow inspired his romantic vision of the middle ages.

I chanted a Kyrie Elison in the Lady Chapel, I wonder if that is the first time that Latin has been heard in those hallowed places, since the time of the Reformation, I really felt the ancient of days, present there with me, and I encourage all peoples, who visit Glasgow, to take the time to visit that place

                                               Looking down from the High Altar. (The Rood Screen)

                                                    The Tomb of St Mungo, Patron Saint of Glasgow