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.
It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.
“Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.
Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.
I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…
To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.
The links on this post have led me to think of this –
The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.
The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.
There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….
There is a knock at the door. A stranger stands on the other side. He say, "Don’t you recognise me?" I don’t recognise him though the voice sounds familiar. The shape of the words he uses is inside me somewhere. I look again. "Russell?"Yes, it is Russell, a school-friend that I have not seen for…
This morning, I had to do one of the hardest things that a priest ever has to to do – telling the congregation in Bridge of Allan that my time at St Saviour’s is drawing to a close.I’m going to be moving to the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway to become the Provost of St…
How do we pray and whom do we pray for? For the prophet Isaiah whom we have heard from this morning, his prayer was flying up there with the eagles. He does not seem to have been concerned about praying for anyone. He was lost in prayer. But Simon asked Jesus to come and pray.…
I’m having a few days off blogging.Back soon.
Leave a Reply