It seems to me that one rarely sees a priest who happens to be a woman happen to wear a maniple.
Actually, one doesn’t see many people wear the maniple these days, for reasons that I’ve never quite understood.
Why, when one does see such a thing, does it seem invariably to be sported on the left forearm of a priest who happens to be a man?
Your thoughts please.
Has anyone else been following the series in ‘The Tablet’ taking the Latin Sunday Collects from the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form), printing alongside them the official English translations and then commenting on the Collects?
The effect the series has on me is not what was intended. I spend much of my time being puzzled and irritated by the looseness of the translations from the Latin – words and phrases left out, new ideas included, and sometimes translations which are at best a paraphrase.
The point of mentioning this is that what I’ve seen of the new English translation of the Roman Mass is undoubtedly more faithful to the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form.
This will be important to some and, I expect, an irrelevance to others. However, an ecumenical gesture we could make (pause for breathtakingly unpopular suggestion!) would be to incorporate the new relevant parts of the new translation in our own Liturgy. That really *would* show ecumenical goodwill.
“…the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form.”
That is certainly debatable. I fail to see that the purpose of the liturgical reforms of the 70s and 80s which resulted in many new liturgical books for most major denominations and prayer books for Anglicans, was to get us all back to the Latin Mass.
Rome has pretty much cut the rest of us “free” so to speak, as irredeemable for all the heresies of women’s ordination and now GLBT ordinations and same sex blessings, and I am fine with that. I would not go anywhere near the Tiber, but I share Kelvin’s sense of loss of something we pew sitters shared around the world.
Just to clarify, when I wrote “…the Latin, which is, after all, the definitive form” I meant that it was the definitive form for Roman Catholics.
Vicky wrote: “… it is unlikely new conversion areas such as China would find Latin accessible.”
A Roman friend of mine who probably would know said to me the other day that the Catholics in China use the Latin mass because they missed out on the reforms of Vatican II. Does anybody know if this is true?
I went recently to a Latin mass here in Sydney with the same friend and most of the servers and the priest were from Vietnam … and a good deal of the back-to-the-future seminarians one sees at the papist cathedral seem to be Korean … so I am not sure that the formality of the Latin mass, or a more formal English one will put off Asian converts.
It’s a pity that the ecumenical implications of this translation exercise haven’t been pondered a bit more.
The "trim the enormous beech tree" project is underway even as I write. I do wish that whoever has planted that tree had planted something a good deal more demure and petite. We have lots and lots of leaves. Next door has lots and lots of of bird dung. Hopefully this will help. Perhaps thinning…
This documentary on Channel 4 is very wearisome. Too many pantomime characters. Too much like real life.
Tomorrow is the day that Episcopal churches count the number of people at services. You have to be there to be counted. Tomorrow there is also a Big Sing at the church of St Peter and St Mildred, Linlithgow – starts 6 pm.
Two consultations exercises today. This morning I was in Edinburgh taking part in a discussion about what General Synod is for. (Polite answers on a postcard or in comments or e-mails). How to connect General Synod with local congregations? Which is the primary entity in the Christian church, the province/nation, the diocese, the charge (multiple…
Leave a Reply