No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
When the new English bishops met at the first Provincial Council in 1852 they decided that they should each hold a diocesan synod before 1854 to promulgate the decrees of the Council, and thereafter annually. These diocesan synods have usually been written off by historians as being of little interest, merely reaffirming and applying Provincial decrees. While this may be true of much of synodal legislation, the importance of the synods went beyond their strictly legal function: they played a part in establishing episcopal authority and in impressing on the clergy that the restoration of the hierarchy had not been merely a palace revolution. Many of the English missionary clergy had felt let down by the Restoration of 1850: they had petitioned Rome for a canonical hierarchy to replace the vicars apostolic in the hope that the new bishops would be less arbitrary in their rule and that they themselves would have their rights confirmed; in this context they were particularly keen on their supposed right to be consulted by the bishops in a range of matters. The events described in this article, which occurred in the new diocese of Liverpool, were perhaps the last organised attempt to get some of those rights recognised.
1 Decreta, p. 38.
2 Schiefen, p. 176; also, for the same judgement, Sweeney, M.V., ‘Diocesan Organisation and Administration’, in Beck, G. A. (ed), English Catholics 1850–1950, (1950) pp. 116–150 Google Scholar at p. 129.
3 Schiefen, pp. 17, HOff.
4 Synodi pp. 3–14. On Brown, see Brady, W. M., The Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland and Ireland 3 vols (Rome 1876, repr. London 1971), vol. 3, pp. 416–8;Google Scholar Milburn, D., A History of Ushaw College (Durham, 1964);Google Scholar Gillow, J., Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics, 5 vols (1885), vol 1, pp. 320–1.Google Scholar
5 Judices querelarum et excusationum and praefecti hospitiorum.
6 The elaborate ceremonial is described in Gavanti, P, Praxis Synodi Diocesanae Celebrandae, reprinted by the English bishops, 1853;Google Scholar copy in AAL, Misc. Vol. 48.
7 Synodi, pp. 12–14 for the full address.
8 AAL, Chapter Minutes, 26 March 1856.
9 Ibidem, 28 March 1856; Synodi, p. 22. Goss was bishop 1856–72; he had been coadjutor from 1853. See Brady, op. cit., pp. 418–22; Gillow, op. cit., vol.2, pp. 535–40; Hughes, P., ‘The bishops of the century’, in Beck, op. cit., pp. 186–222,Google Scholar at pp. 196–7.
10 Synodi, pp. 22–5.
11 AAL, Ad clerum letters, Sept 1865. Also, AAW, 130/1/142, Brown to Wiseman, 31 Dec 1852, for imposters performing marriages and funerals among the poor.
12 Synodi, p. 21.
13 LRO, RCLv 5/2/78, Goss to Carr, 12 Oct 1857.
14 Synodi, pp. 42–4, is bland and uninformative, with no reference to any dispute; it says the synod ended omnibus in caritate et concordia peractis.
15 AAL, Ad clerum letters, 14 Oct 1857.
16 Bouscaren, T. L. and Ellis, A. C., Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, (Milwaukee, USA, 3rd edition, 1957) p. 809.Google Scholar
17 Upholland College Library, folder Cathedraticum: this contains Goss collection of material on the dispute, including Worthy's papers. The material is in bundles numbered I-X, with individual items numbered or lettered. References will be to Uph.Cath., bundle number, item reference. The Resolution is Uph.Cath., I, A.
18 On Worthy, see LRO, RCLv Visitation Returns 1865, under mission of Euxton: he had been born in Novia Scotia of English parents, acquired an English domicile and been educated at Sedgeley Park and Ushaw; his career as prefect of discipline at Ushaw, where his severity helped cause the student rebellion of 1842, is covered in Milburn, op cit, pp. 171–2.
19 UphCath, I,F.
20 Ibidem, I, B.
21 Ibidem, I, C.
22 Quaestiones Morales (Liverpool 1855); the regulation is on the first page (not numbered). Copy in Upholland College Library, Pamphlet Collection Misc Vol. V. Goss took considerable care over the conferences—see his letter consulting the future Bishop Clifford about how to provide model answers for the clergy, RCLv 5/1/24, Goss to Clifford, 8 Nov. 1855. On the conferences in general, see my article ‘Missed Opportunities: Clerical Conferences in the nineteenth century’, The Downside Review, October 1982.
23 Synodi, pp. 22–3.
24 Uph.Cath., I, G.
25 Ibidem, D and E.
26 LRO, RCLv 5/2/85, Goss to Hodgson, 19 Oct 1857.
27 Ibidem, 5/2/82, Goss to Brown of Lancaster, 14 Oct 1857.
28 Uph.Cath., III, 2.
29 Ibidem, III, 3.
30 Ibidem, V (single document).
31 LRO, RCLv 5/2/322, Goss to Bishop Grant, 16 Sept 1858.
32 Worthy had been Procurator at the first synod, Synodi, p. 7.
33 The phrase is in Gavanti's Praxis, cap. XVI, n 1; Goss's inteipretation seems the correct one. The account of the synod which follows is based on Uph.Cath., IV, 2; see also LRO, RCLv 5/2/149–54, Goss to Errington, 7 Jan 1858.
34 Uph.Cath., IV, n VI.
35 LRO, RCLv 5/2/106, Goss to O'Reilly, 21 Nov 1857. For the long-standing and acrimonious quarrels between the two sets of clergy, and Goss’ attempts to impose his authority, see my ‘English Benedictines and the Restoration of the Hierarchy’, Transactions of the EEC Historical Symposium, 1984, pp. 4–21.
36 Ibidem, 5/2/92, Goss to Walker, 9 Nov 1857.
37 Ibidem, 5/2/94, Goss to Taylor, 9 Nov 1857.
38 Goss to Errington, loc cit.
39 LRO, RCLv5/2/93, Goss to Swarbrick, 9 Nov 1857.
40 Goss to O'Reilly, loc cit.
41 Goss to Errington, loc cit.
42 LRO, RCLv 5/2/351, Goss to Bishop Clifford, 11 Oct 1858; see also 5/2/442, Goss to Mgr. Searle,15 Jan 1859.
43 Ibidem, 5/2/171, Goss to Worthy, 22 Jan 1858.
44 Ibidem, 5/2/99, Goss to Brown of Lancaster, 20 Nov 1857; also Goss to Errington, loc cit.
45 Goss to Taylor, loc cit.
46 Goss to Worthy, loc cit.
47 Uph.Cath., V (paginated).
48 Ibidem, p. 23.
49 Ibidem.
50 Ibidem, pp. 23–4.
51 Letters to Worthy and Errington already cited.
52 Copies in Uph.Cath., VII.
53 O'Reilly, M, ‘The Church in Great Britain and Ireland’, in Metzler, J ed, Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum, 3 vols, (Freiburg, 1976),Google Scholar Vols III, Para 2a, says that this is the one case of interest to arise from the early diocesan synods, and that it was studied very thoroughly by the Congregation.
54 Copies of the replies in Uph.Cath., VII, 15; AAW, 116/3; AAL Chapter Minute Book, 2 March 1859.
55 Throughout the dispute there was no reference to a previous decision (apparently taken in 1855) to fix the tax at £1 for all dioceses, see Decreta, p. 175, where it is said that it was because of this that Liverpool had asked for £1. This would seem to have destroyed Worthy's case about custom and practice; but why had Brown only asked for 5/-? It is strange that Goss made no reference to the earlier decision.
56 AAW, 116/3 for the discussion; Decreta, pp. 174–5, for the decrees. Worthy had circulated a summary of the dispute and arguments for a 10/- tax (Uph.Cath., VIII), Schiefen, p. 345 mistakenly says that £1 was fixed for Liverpool, 10/- for the rest; the decree is clear that a uniform tax is being imposed; see also AAL, Ad clerum letters, 12 Oct 1865; Goss quoted the Provincial Council in support of 10/-.
57 LRO, RCLv 5/3/26, Goss to Bishop of Shrewsbury, 14 March 1850.
58 Uph.Cath., I, G.
59 Goss bore Worthy no hard feelings; at the next synod he appointed him procurator cleri, and in 1870 made him a dean and canon. Clearly Goss saw in him more than an ecclesiastical radical. (For the appointments, Synodi, pp. 54, 92.)
60 See my article, ‘Bishop Goss of Liverpool and the Importance of Being English’, in Studies in Church History, vol. 18, 1982, pp. 433–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61 Simpson, R., ‘The Catholic Church in England in 1859’, first published in The Downside Review, 1966, pp. 171–192 Google Scholar with an introduction by D. McElrath.