CE Trinity Cathedral in the Danilov Monastery: Wed, 14th September 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ardcarp
    Late member
    • Nov 2010
    • 11102

    #31
    I wasn't being picky. I am slightly intrigued by the idea of the Cross being elevated in the same way as (apologies for any disrespect to believers) Our Lord and the BVM.

    Comment

    • jean
      Late member
      • Nov 2010
      • 7100

      #32
      Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
      So the latter, especially in meaning 2 has a sense of elevation, ascension even.
      Not ascension, really.

      Ascending is self-propelled, but exaltare is always transitive, and doesn't give any indication of who's doing the raising, so your 'in the same way' assumes more than is stated. I would think St Helena was the first to 'raise' the cross, to show everyone she'd found it, and it is her action that is repeated by the priest in the Mass.

      (You are correct to note that exultare and exaltare are two different words, and many a Magnificat has been spoiled by a failure to recognise this fact.)

      I find it interesting that the newest ICEL translations have moved much closer to the Latin than those of the 1970s - Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum was first turned into Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but has now become Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.

      High Anglicans who haven't quite caught up are still using the first translation, I have noted.

      .
      Last edited by jean; 15-09-16, 22:44.

      Comment

      • mopsus
        Full Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 818

        #33
        Originally posted by jean View Post

        High Anglicans who haven't quite caught up are still using the first translation, I have noted.

        .
        The High Anglican Church I used to attend has been saying 'that thou shouldst enter under my roof' since before the RCs changed, so they were ahead of the game!

        Comment

        • jean
          Late member
          • Nov 2010
          • 7100

          #34
          Yes, the giveaway there is that thou shouldst, which must be pre-1970s

          ButI don't really uinderstand why any sort of Anglican wouldn't stick with the beautiful BCP We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table... instead of pinching bits of RC liturgy!

          Comment

          • mopsus
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 818

            #35
            Originally posted by jean View Post
            Yes, the giveaway there is that thou shouldst, which must be pre-1970s

            ButI don't really uinderstand why any sort of Anglican wouldn't stick with the beautiful BCP We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table... instead of pinching bits of RC liturgy!
            There were once two strains of Anglo-Catholicism: one wanted to follow RC liturgical practice closely, the other, 'Prayer Book Catholic' wanted to integrate Catholic spirituality, feast days etc. with the BCP. Eventually the two began to merge, and (sadly in my view) the Prayer Book Catholic strain disappeared.

            Conversely, the 'Anglican patrimony' of Ordinariate churches seems to amount to little more than the Prayer of Humble Access. I'm willing to be corrected on this.

            Comment

            • jean
              Late member
              • Nov 2010
              • 7100

              #36
              Originally posted by mopsus View Post
              There were once two strains of Anglo-Catholicism: one wanted to follow RC liturgical practice closely, the other, 'Prayer Book Catholic' wanted to integrate Catholic spirituality, feast days etc. with the BCP.
              And that's not counting the ones who wanted to bypass Rome altogether, and forge closer links with the Orthodox instead.

              (Whew, back on track - almost!)

              Comment

              • vinteuil
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 12798

                #37
                Originally posted by jean View Post

                I find it interesting that the newest ICEL translations have moved much closer to the Latin than those of the 1970s - Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum was first turned into Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but has now become Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.


                .
                Last week I was at a wedding in Greece, a Roman Catholic wedding with a monk from Worth imported for the purpose. About half of us were Catholic, in various states of lapsitude. Most coped with the responses during the nuptial Mass fairly adequately, dredging up distant memories. There was the usual inward sniggering at the Anglicans who added the extra bit at the end of the Lord's Prayer. We came adrift at the English form of Non sum dignus - half of us very out of date with our "... not worthy to receive you" while the more up-to-speed regular attenders were swift with their "enter under my roof". My excuse is that in the days when I did go to church it was Farm Street so it wd've been "... sub tectum meum" anyway

                Comment

                • jean
                  Late member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 7100

                  #38
                  Listening to the repeat, I was reminded by the commentator of John 12:32, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
                  In the Vulgate, this is et ego, si exaltatus fuero in terra, omnis traho ad me ipsum.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X