AN OUTSIDE VIEW

Today at Mass we were told that, to prevent the spread of swine flue, we were not to make the sign of peace, that only the Body of Christ would be distributed at Holy Communion, and not the Blood of Christ, and that Communion would be given on the tongue, not in the hand. Good. Is it too much to hope that this will be the last we shall see of these three practices, seeing that the Vatican has now come round to expressing its disapproval? What next? Can we expect to be asked to receive Communion whilst kneeling, to avoid infection? Should the Priest not be facing the same way as the congregation ( ad orientem ), again, to avoid infection? And would it not reduce the risk of infection if the Canon of the Mass was recited silently? And whilst on health and safety matters, should the altar rails go back so as to get rid of the trip hazard due to the sanctuary step? Otherwise the step will have to be marked with yellow tape which would not be nice.

The definitive liturgy for the Catholic church is always in Latin, and the vernacular translation normally used are translations from the Latin. The English version was prepared by a body going by the initials ICEL and dates from the late 1960s. It is, to put it mildly, a free adaptation rather than a translation, and the authorities have requested that a new translation be made, faithful to the Latin. This is due to be introduced in a couple of years. It is an improvement on the present one, there is no doubt about that. How well it will be accepted is another matter. It has a curiously seventeenth century ring about it. That will make it difficult for many to accept on account of its evident strangeness. This applies not just to people in the UK and US with English as their mother tongue but poor command of the language, but also in ex-Commonwealth countries. I can't see it going down well in those oddly mixed congregations that for some reason attend English masses here in Swede...

In the Tablet's report on Archbishop Nicholls’ speech to the Latin Mass Society’s recent training event, the comment made was that the old form of the Mass precludes participation. In what way? ( Tablet, 8 and August ) Congregations can sing the Ordinary of the Mass and the responses in both new and old forms. In the old mass, whilst the priest is reciting the Canon silently and in Latin, the congregation is meant to be doing the same thing in the vernacular. So where is the lack of participation? Because of its flexibility, the post-Vatican II liturgy can, and often does, exclude. Hymns are often unfamiliar or difficult to sing. The responsorial psalm is a challenge to anyone whose hearing and short-term memory are not 100%. Participation is also impeded when the Mass is celebrated in a vernacular which is not one’s own language, or when the priest is celebrating in a language in which he is not fluent - which is by no means unusual in some countries. Reciting the Canon of the Ma...

I have come across a couple of people recently who go to church regularly but are not formally members. One has been going to a Catholic Mass regularly for the past twenty years. Another person I met alternates between Catholic and Protestant churches. What should they do? In the first example, the subject came up over coffee. I said “it was between you and God”. There was no need to discuss the matter except to answer questions. Much the same applies in the second example. If someone is drawn to attending church, God is obviously at work.But these things have their own momentum and go at their own speed. If and when the time is ripe for taking a more positive step, then they will feel it as something they have to go through with. If one comes across people at that stage of their spiritual life, the last thing to do is to push them. Someone who is attending both Catholic and Protestant churches also needs to do the necessary background reading to find out what both stand for. It is eve...

Last week I visited the Riksdag in Stockholm. This was very interesting in comparison with the British parliament. I came to the conclusion that there are advantages and disadvantages in the two countries' systems. What is good about the British system is the one-member one-constituency arrangement. What is bad about the British system is first-past-the-post voting. It leads to unrepresentative democracy which is hardly democracy at all. But the Swedish electoral system is by area, with multi-member constituencies selected from a party list. This tends to give too much power to party selection committees. Britain's two-chamber system is also good in that it provides a check on government. However, the Swedish system removes government from parliament. What in effect corresponds to the British cabinet is separate from but answerable to the elected members. Elected members who become members of the government must resign their seats and as I understood it, new elections are held....