I assure you I wasn’t trying to masquerade as you, and I am truly sorry if I have caused you any embarrassment.

No worries, Jane O. Thanks for your supportive comments early on, by the way.

And I do believe you’ve started, or escalated, a thread truly unique on this forum! Who’d have thought it would lead to in-depth discussion of Tudor ecclesiastical politics? It’s been fascinating reading, and I’ve certainly learned a thing or two.

In history, the British Isles are refered to as such, as far back as 1522 when Waldseemuller mapped the islands as “Insvia Britani.”

The British Isles have existed in their present form since the Ice Age, and are described as such in various accounts from the Romans onwards.
The British Isles is a geographical description, as is “Europe” and “North America.” England, Scotland, Ireland, Ulster and Wales are political entities, and the United Kingdom currently describes England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales.
As a political entity, the United Kingdom, with a monarch and a constitution in common has only been in existence since 1702. Before that date, even when the countries have had a monarch in common, he was officially described as “James I and VI” and “Charles I and I” because until that date, Scotland was a separate country. Politically speaking.

Definitely not the British Isles at this stage. England and Wales only. Scotland didn’t unite with England until 1702

In history, the British Isles are refered to as such, as far back as 1522 when Waldseemuller mapped the islands as “Insvia Britani.”

I don’t believe Henry the VIII considered himself Roman Catholic after his divine order of ‘monarch as head of the church’ in the British Isles, replacing the Pope. I believe he saw himself as head of a church based on apostolic doctrine. His daughter, Mary was pro Catholic but I deem that due to her mother’s influence and religious advisors. As I see it, the political lean for Elizabeth to take the British throne was to prevent accusations of treason for the previously patriotic Anglican converts under her father’s rule. There is further challenge with regard Ireland and political vs religious sides, resulting in the Republic of Ireland and the UK ruled Northern Ireland. Another topic altogether, isn’t it.

He saw himself as head of the Catholic Church in England, but no longer a Roman Catholic. While reformers saw it as their ‘in,’ he remained firm and stuck to Catholic doctrine. I think he always planned to reconcile with Rome, perhaps when the Pope who was Queen Katherine’s nerphew had died, but we’ll never know. Mary returned to Rome and acknowledged the supremacy of Rome, even though her brother, Edward VI, had officially turned England Protestant.
Definitely not the British Isles at this stage. England and Wales only. Scotland didn’t unite with England until 1702

Tobin, you have my sincere apologies. My second post was of some use to you so I am slightly relieved but would like to offer you a RC viewpoint privately, if you wish. Having visited RC churches in many parts of the world, including a remote village in the Sierra Madre, I’ve found various differences (some subtle, some not so) depending on the country, the order and sometimes, the preferences of a rural parish priest. I have a rather extraordinarly diverse RC background and can provide some insight if you like.

MS Jones, too funny! And it did seem clear, didn’t it, the parchments should have been handed over to authorities and holding them from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia was illegal. Someone had mentioned defrocking, so I thought to add Father Stokes wouldn’t face excommunication except for violation of Canon Law. I just wondered if the priest told the whole truth to his bishop, but have a pretty good idea why Father Stokes would withhold the discovery until he read the old documents. In spite of that, it seems to me the priest would be feeling remorse at not confessing everything to his bishop.

Jane O, no worries please. It was my faux pas that created the misunderstanding. Although I continue to maintain Catholic churches architecturally refer to the nave as any area south of the altar and chancel. Worshippers fill the transepts at times of celebration and direct reference is made to nave including the transepts in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I admit to dispensations for daily Mass in poorly attended cathedrals that it may be held at a side altar prepared to hold the tabernacle, but a rural church in Mexico is not a NYC cathedral.

Lynne, I adore the Tudor period as well and have a special interest in Henry VIII and his creation of the Anglican Church, as I am a Catholic born in England. I don’t believe Henry the VIII considered himself Roman Catholic after his divine order of ‘monarch as head of the church’ in the British Isles, replacing the Pope. I believe he saw himself as head of a church based on apostolic doctrine. His daughter, Mary was pro Catholic but I deem that due to her mother’s influence and religious advisors. As I see it, the political lean for Elizabeth to take the British throne was to prevent accusations of treason for the previously patriotic Anglican converts under her father’s rule. There is further challenge with regard Ireland and political vs religious sides, resulting in the Republic of Ireland and the UK ruled Northern Ireland. Another topic altogether, isn’t it.

I very much enjoyed your setting descriptions. Very vivid. But I felt there was a bit too much of it – I was much more interested in finding out more about the illegal activity he was about to engage in – and what would incent a Father to do whatever it is he’s about to do.

I was also a little confused by the ‘earthly law’ phrase. Being that the character who’s head we’re in is a member of the clergy, I took it to mean spiritual or religious law.

Yes, thank you, Lynne. I was just trying to simplify.

Sigh. I know, it’s me, not you. I’m obsessed by the Tudor age. Never managed to write a novel set in the period, though.

I don’t want to join in the argument, but I think we can all agree More was a special case. He defied the law because the law was telling him to renounce his God; in doing so he gave his life for the Catholic Church.

Well, actually, the law was telling him to renounce his Pope. The Act of Supremacy required him, as an official of the English court, to renounce the authority of the Pope in the English church, especially in secular concerns. He was given the opportunity to quietly resign, if his principles wouldn’t allow him to go along with that, which was more than many people were offered, but he chose to martyr himself and to blacken the name of someone he had admired and respected up to that point.
People tend to forget that England, not Henry, needed an heir. It wasn’t (only) an egotistical demand for a male heir – Henry could have stayed married to Katherine and had bits on the side for the rest of his life, and produced sons, but as he’d finished off the job his father had started and killed off any possible claimant to the English throne, he needed to prevent the country falling back into civil war by producing a legitimate, without question, heir.
More tried to stop that, being one of those people who looked at principles rather than actuality. His act is still being discussed in academic circles. But he was never asked to renounce his God – only the Pope. If he equated the two, then that was his privilege. Henry remained a Catholic to the end of his days, and persecuted Protestants with all the fervour of his daughter Mary. He just didn’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope. High politics is never a matter of black and white.
Sigh. I just outed myself, didn’t I?

Defiance of civil law can even get you sainthood – consider Thomas More.

I don’t want to join in the argument, but I think we can all agree More was a special case. He defied the law because the law was telling him to renounce his God; in doing so he gave his life for the Catholic Church.

He wasn’t a shoplifter or something. There are laws, and there are laws.

And yes, INAH comes into the story after about three more paragraphs. Mario, (who was in Guatemala during the civil wars there, and was nearly killed when he sheltered villagers from uniformed goons) is a fairly fearless guy. Stephen is a total bookworm, with a special passion for colonial history. When Mario discovered the parchments (that the repair crew hadn’t noticed before knocking off for the day) in the rubble, he thought What the heck; I’ll hold on to these and see if Steve can get some time off to come and see them. Then I’ll turn them over to INAH.

So you were right. What’s illegal about Stephen’s plans is that he knows Mario should have called in the experts to extract the parchments from the rubble instead of risking damage to them by doing it himself – and certainly shouldn’t have hidden them just so his old pal could come and take a peek.

Tobin and Jane O are NOT the same person.

My only response to your first comment was a request for help in understanding the terminology. Your second post did clarify this: what I thought was an altar in the east alcove was one of the tables for candles that you explained in your subsequent post. I should have recognized it as such, since I’ve seen many such tables in identical positions in other churches — it’s just that in the Spanish mission I visited, there were no candles on the table, and it was covered with a white cloth, just like the real altar.
Again, it seems to have been another DA member who emailed you privately. I have responded only here on the website.
Again, many thanks for your help in clarifying the nomenclature, and also for your encouraging words about the story.
–Tobin

I like the rewrite. Good on you for keeping the fish! I read that as Mario telling Father Stephen to bring a lot of faith and then he doesn’t bring it. Bum bum buuuuum!

Or maybe I’m reading WAAAAAY too much symbolism into the text. To paraphrase Freud: sometimes a fish is just a fish.

MC Halliday: Totally guessing here, but I’m thinking the illegality comes from concealing the parchments from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Not completely familiar with Mexican law, but it’s my understanding that INAH will go all Buffy on you if you don’t report the discovery of culturally important historical documents.

Tobin, re the title, which doesn’t seem to “work,” here’s some ideas –

Lower Life [riff on Baja]

See the Beast [riff on ecce homo]

Seize the Beast [riff on carpe diem]

Strange Mission

- or whatever – something that will not instantly alienate a literary agent or publisher; I agree that Wild Meat is not your best choice.

Excommunication is for a very serious public defiance of moral or church law, not civil law. Defiance of civil law can even get you sainthood – consider Thomas More.

Colloquially, the nave refers to the entire area reserved for worshipers. As a technical term in church architecture, it does not. Check the Catholic Encyclopedia if you like.

Members of orders like Franciscans or Dominicans are part of the “regular” clergy because they are bound by that order’s rule (regulum). They may or may not be priests (some may simply be brothers). Priests who are ordained but are not members of an order are “ordinary” clergy. It’s not a sneer, it is simply the technical term.

And yes, there can be a side altar, sometimes called a bye-altar, in one or more of the bays of the apse, nave or transept. This is frequently where daily mass is celebrated in large churches and cathedrals.

“I think it is much less likely than you suggest that a priest will get excommunicated for breaking the law. Think of all those priests like the Berrigan brothers who were out there getting arrested during the civil rights marches and anti-war protests of the 60s. They don’t even excommunicate pedophiles.

Priests do get vacations, and can go anywhere they like. I think you may be confusing the regular clergy (those in an order) with the secular clergy (ordinary parish priests).

And the transept is the transept, it is not the nave. I don’t know about Spanish mission churches, but many old Catholic churches have side chapels. Even St. Patrick’s in NYC does.”

I must tell you that I am not a expert in Vatican law but I have many years as a devoted RC, including catechism instruction and consideration of a vocation.

To your first comment, I shall just say that in the US this month, a priest is facing excommunication for attending the ordination of a female priest. One must know the Vatican guidelines for excommunication before declaring knowledge of such, the RC church has very strict rules and few are aligned with law made by state government in any land. Divorce and remarriage are one example.

Yes, I am aware of vacations for clergy although they must be approved by the bishop and in accorance with religious vows at ordination with further considerations made for the order. More to the point, there is no priest in the RC church that is not bound by vows and therefore not a part of an order, whether it is Jesuit or other. Parish priests are ordained and so your notion of ‘regular’ clergy is notwithstanding. Google is often wrong, don’t rely on it.

Please reference Catholic church architecture that you may understand the nave is the entire portion of a RC church reserved for worshippers, including the central and side aisles and transepts. These side sections of seating for worshippers (east and west of transepts) is part of the nave.

And please understand this: the tabernacle set upon the altar is the most important part of a Catholic church. Housing the Eucharist, and where the sacrament occurs during Mass, does deem any other table or platform NOT an altar. See my above post, Sacrament of the Altar.

DA’s ‘first page’ blog is meant to engage discussion, perhaps to aid new authors and gain exposure for new works. Emailing me privately to assert your stance does not further the purpose.

The two side alcoves are for the placement of statues on elevated platforms and on the east side, typically a cast iron table of vigil lights is prominent for candle lighting before the Virgin Mary. There is never more than one altar in an RC church as the Sacrament of the Altar is celebrated there from the tabernacle. This has been traditional for hundreds of years.

Tobin, your tale intrigues me for many reasons: the priest as hero, the parchments recently discovered, the RC aspect, the SF/F genre. And I too, would consider a different title more in keeping with the theme and less, um, directed toward hunting or game cookery.

Thanks