And with your spirit

[Digitonomy]

It is sometimes mentioned that when the congregation responds to the celebrant’s “Peace be with you” with “And also with you,” this is an inaccurate translation of the Latin, in which the congregation replies “And with your spirit.”

It only seems natural to me that the congregation responds in kind to the priest’s greeting. If the priest says “Good morning,” we say “Good morning, Father.” If the celebrant says “Peace be with your spirits,” it would be proper to reply “And with your spirit.”

But when the priest addresses the generic “you,” it seems odd to address not him, but his spirit in reply.

This leads me to think I must be missing some meaning in the Latin exchange. Any ideas?

 

[OurLadyOfEfes]

I believe that this will be corrected in the upcoming corrected english translation of the Mass. I think it is due out in a year or so.

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for the reply, but that doesn’t answer my Q. How is it that the Latin makes sense?

Why, after the priest gives us a brief greeting or blessing of the Lord being with us, do we reply not to him, but to his spirit?

 

[OurLadyOfEfes]

I think a Priest could answer this one a little better than I can but I believe it means that the congregation are in union with his spirit as he is in persona cristi. We are through him, with him, in him. in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve99]

Digitonomy:

Thanks for the reply, but that doesn’t answer my Q. How is it that the Latin makes sense?

Why, after the priest gives us a brief greeting or blessing of the Lord being with us, do we reply not to him, but to his spirit?

The answer is probably that the Latin doesn’t make sense, but no-one in Rome can admit it, so they try & foist this clumsy response onto everyone instead of doing the obvious and correcting the Latin.

 

[gez722]

Digitonomy:

It is sometimes mentioned that when the congregation responds to the celebrant’s “Peace be with you” with “And also with you,” this is an inaccurate translation of the Latin, in which the congregation replies “And with your spirit.”

It only seems natural to me that the congregation responds in kind to the priest’s greeting. If the priest says “Good morning,” we say “Good morning, Father.” If the celebrant says “Peace be with your spirits,” it would be proper to reply “And with your spirit.”

But when the priest addresses the generic “you,” it seems odd to address not him, but his spirit in reply.

This leads me to think I must be missing some meaning in the Latin exchange. Any ideas?

I had the same question and I was about to post it when I saw this thread. I emailed Jimmy Akin and here is his response (from www.jimmyakin.org)

A reader writes:

I have heard it mentioned that in the Latin Mass the response to the priest’s statement “The Lord be with you” was actually “and with your spirit”. It seems to me that “and also with you” makes more sense, but I think I’m missing something. What does “and with your spirit” really mean?

Not only does it say “And with your spirit” (Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo) in the Latin version of the Mass, it’s going to say this in the forthcoming new English translation of the Mass as well, if things go as currently planned. This was one of the items that the Vatican wanted fixed in the new translation.

To answer your question, the meaning of “And with your spirit” would depend on the context in which its used. Since there is no express subject for the phrase, that has to be filled in by context. In the liturgy (the only place one encounters this phrase typically) the context is, as you note, as response to “The Lord be with you.” “And with your spirit” is thus an abbreviated way of saying “And [the Lord be] with your spirit.” It’s a way of wishing the priest the same thing that he just wished us: that the Lord would be with us.

If one were to give a dynamic equivalence rendering of this–one that seeks to preserve meaning without worrying about giving a literal translation–"And also with you"would be an acceptable rendering of the phrase. They mean the same thing.

The problem is that the translators of the current rite of Mass went crazy with dynamic equivalence and totally steamrollered the sacred style of the Mass, making it seem far more banal and blasé than it is in the original Latin. Even if it requires a bit of education to help folks understand what is being said when the Mass is translated in a way that better reflects what the original says, the Holy See has judged that this will be offset by the gain in reverence and appreciation of the richness of the language of the Mass–it’s poetry and art, if you will.

What the previous translators did was the equivalent of taking Shakespeare and paraphrasing it so that ten year olds can understand it without effort. That flattens the art and dignity of the text.

Ultimately, it’s better to teach people to understand and appreciate the elevated style rather than dumbing down the text so they don’t have to learn anything new. The former, educational strategy ennobles the people; the latter, style-squashing strategy dishonors the text.

I hope this helps.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Digitonomy]

Good work, Gez. Unfortunately, Jimmy didn’t really address why there is this asymmetry between the priest’s statement, and the response. He explains the congregation saying “and with your spirit,” but then why doesn’t the priest say “The Lord be with your spirits.”?

Jimmy also makes it out as a simple decision on style - and it’s clear which side he is on. Personally, I have no problem with the insertion of some high-falutin’ language to lift the general feeling above hum-drum, everyday language. But this particular one still doesn’t make much sense to me, particularly when it’s only said by one party (the congregation). Oh well, I don’t make the rules. When the new translation comes out, I will do as I’m told.

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, I just checked out Jimmy’s site. They are discussing this in more detail than this thread, so it’s worthwhile for people to read over there.
jimmyakin.org/2005/06/and_with_your_s.html#comments

 

[msproule]

steve99:

The answer is probably that the Latin doesn’t make sense, but no-one in Rome can admit it, so they try & foist this clumsy response onto everyone instead of doing the obvious and correcting the Latin.

Probably not.

Here is what I found on the Adoremus website. Look at section V, paragraph E.

The translation of “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “And also with you” has become familiar in the English-speaking world, and a change in the people’s response would no doubt occasion some temporary discomfort. Nevertheless, the continuous literal translation of this response in all major liturgical traditions, whether Semitic, Greek, or Latin as well as in virtually every other modern language, constitutes a historical consensus and an imperative that can no longer be set aside. The present translation inappropriately situates the exchange on a purely horizontal level, without any apparent distinction in the roles of those who speak; the literal translation in its historical context has always been understood in relation to the crucial distinction of liturgical roles between the priest and the people. Weighty considerations such as these necessitate that the English translation at last be brought into conformity with the usage of the other language groups, and with the tradition, as is also prescribed now in the Congregation’s recent Instruction Liturgiam authenticam.

 

[Fizendell]

I have thought about this lately too and so I’m glad to see the discussion. Good points too, enough to satisfy my curiosity for a while.

I liked this part especially:

msproule:

The present translation inappropriately situates the exchange on a purely horizontal level, without any apparent distinction in the roles of those who speak; the literal translation in its historical context has always been understood in relation to the crucial distinction of liturgical roles between the priest and the people.

What I’m wondering is when this new version comes out - will they also be kind enough to tell us whether or not some of the gestures are suggested, discouraged, or down right not permitted?

I have often wondered when people started extending their hands (like giving a box to the priest) when they responded, “and also with you.” I never understood the hand holding at the Our Father, but figured it was among people who knew each other. But the hands up in the air like the priest (is that called Orans posture?) – I never got why people started that either.

I especially enjoy the Magnificat because it indicates things like when to bow in the Nicene Creed, etc. It would be great if it - or the missal for everyone - indicated “Stand”, “Sit”, “Kneel”, etc.

Change is always a good time to remind people of what is acceptable and what isn’t.

 

[MrS]

You can bet the wording will not be ambiguous at this mass:

English priest to celebrate Latin Mass in St Peter’s
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent

An English priest will this week celebrate what is believed to be the first Tridentine Rite Mass for 20 years in St Peter’s in Rome, the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. Fr Andrew Southwell. The historic service, hailed as a breakthrough by traditionalists, will be led by Fr Andrew Southwell on Friday, a month after the Pope lifted a long-standing ban on the “Old Rite” in the world’s most famous church. Devotees of the Tridentine Rite, which was virtually outlawed after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, believe that the Pope is now poised to relax restrictions on the traditional Mass throughout the world.

Speculation is mounting that he will grant a “universal indult” to allow all priests to celebrate the Mass without first having to gain permission from their bishops. Under the Old Rite, which dates from the 1570 Council of Trent, the priest says high Mass facing east with his back to the congregation, intoning the Latin liturgy in clouds of incense. Since Vatican II, however, the rite has been displaced by Mass in the vernacular, which traditionalists believe lacks the mystery of its predecessor.
Although individual bishops can authorise its use, a significant number discourage it because it has been favoured by traditionalists who oppose Vatican II reforms. The Tridentine Rite was associated with the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who founded the traditionalist Pius X Society and was excommunicated after illegally consecrating bishops.

The St Peter’s service is the latest in a series of concessions to traditionalists which suggest the Pope is relaxing the Vatican’s opposition to the rite and seeking a rapprochement with the society.
On Saturday Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos will hold a Tridentine Rite Mass in St Mary Major, the first cardinal to do so in a main Roman basilica for 30 years. Last month the Pope, who is keen to heal the rift with traditionalists, published a command permitting the use of the old Latin rite in St Peter’s. Members of the Latin Mass Society will leave on a pilgrimage to Rome today for what the society believes will be the first Old Rite service in St. Peter’s since 1984, certainly by an English priest. They will also attend the Saturday service said by Cardinal Hoyos.

Fr Southwell, a Benedictine monk based at St Bede’s church in Clapham Park, south London, will preside at the morning service in the crypt of Our Lady of Hungary chapel before a congregation of about 60 or 70 pilgrims. “As a priest, to be able to offer the traditional Roman rite of the Mass at the tomb of St Peter is an immense privilege,” he said. “It represents a great breakthrough for traditionalists and a sign of hope. Not only is our existence being acknowledged but we are being encouraged.”

 

[Brendan]

The distinction is theological. The priest acts not a person at Mass, but in persona Christi, as Christ Himself.

The priest asks that the Lord be with us as persons, we, as the faithful as the the Lord be with the priest as Spirit, to use the physical manifestation of the priest’s body to bring Christ present among us.

When we hear the Institutional Narrative, we are hearing the Christ Himself speak those words, but through the body of the priest.

We are asking that the Lord be with the priest in a way that the laity cannot participate in, and thus the difference. The ‘and with your Spirit’ highlights the difference between us and the priest and adds to the Mystery of the Mass.

 

[gez722]

Digitonomy:

Good work, Gez. Unfortunately, Jimmy didn’t really address why there is this asymmetry between the priest’s statement, and the response. He explains the congregation saying “and with your spirit,” but then why doesn’t the priest say “The Lord be with your spirits.”?

Jimmy also makes it out as a simple decision on style - and it’s clear which side he is on. Personally, I have no problem with the insertion of some high-falutin’ language to lift the general feeling above hum-drum, everyday language. But this particular one still doesn’t make much sense to me, particularly when it’s only said by one party (the congregation). Oh well, I don’t make the rules. When the new translation comes out, I will do as I’m told.

Nice thread, Digitonomy. Thanks for starting it. I have always found Jimmy to be “right on” theologically. I enjoyed following the discussion on his blog, although I was hoping he would have jumped back into the discussion. It sounds like some folks have some pretty convincing arguments that there may be something more to this than just language enhacement. In any event, I’m happy that an attempt is being made to restore sacredness and respect to the Mass. I’m sure it will be a bit of an adjustment for the congregation at first, but the end result will be worth the effort.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Brendan:

The distinction is theological. The priest acts not a person at Mass, but in persona Christi, as Christ Himself.

The priest asks that the Lord be with us as persons, we, as the faithful as the the Lord be with the priest as Spirit, to use the physical manifestation of the priest’s body to bring Christ present among us.

This is along the lines of how I’ve heard Cardinal George explain the distinction too.

 

[Digitonomy]

gez722:

I have always found Jimmy to be “right on” theologically…It sounds like some folks have some pretty convincing arguments that there may be something more to this than just language enhacement.

Jimmy is easily my favorite. But you’re right, it appears that he overlooked a key reason for the distinction between what the congregation says, and the priest. For those who haven’t gone over to Jimmy’s site, here’s a key quote by John Chrysostum, as posted by Fr. S.

‘When he stands at the holy altar, when he is about to offer the awesome sacrifice – you have answered ‘And with your spirit’ reminding yourselves by this reply that he … does nothing by his own power … but by the grace of the Spirit …’

While I wouldn’t normally be happy to find Jimmy’s answer incomplete, in this case I am. Pomp for the sake of pomp is sometimes silly, especially when it appears illogical - as it did here. But as it turns out, there is a much deeper and more important meaning than a quirky or poetic turn of phrase - the result is that the phrase isn’t just proper or acceptable, but it definitely enhances the liturgy. I’m sold.

 

[gez722]

Digitonomy:

But as it turns out, there is a much deeper and more important meaning than a quirky or poetic turn of phrase - the result is that the phrase isn’t just proper or acceptable, but it definitely enhances the liturgy. I’m sold.

Me too!

 

[Edward_Pothier]

In the 2001 Vatican document LITURGIAM AUTHENTICAM one of the sections dealt with this particular question of vernacular translation.

56. Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible, as for example the words of the people’s response Et cum spiritu tuo

, or the expression mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the Act of Penance of the Order of Mass.

However, every commentary I have seen suggests that the translation being called for in this passage is “And with your spirit” instead of the current ICEL version “And also with you”.

I will become a little pedantic and say that the “And with your spirit” is not as “literal as possible” a translation of “Et cum spiritu tuo” . Although I do not want to see it become the standard, the most literal translation would probably be “and with thy spirit”, using the second person singular possessive pronoun which is nearly obsolete in English.

The priest’s line is “Dominus vobiscum”, i.e. “The Lord be with you”. The “vobis” indicates second person plural. However the people’s response has the “tuo” or second person singular. If you really wish to push literalness, do we have to “go back” to the thee/thou/thine/thy sort of words?

Edward Pothier

 

[Digitonomy]

Edward Pothier:

I will become a little pedantic and say that the “And with your spirit” is not as “literal as possible” a translation of “Et cum spiritu tuo” . Although I do not want to see it become the standard, the most literal translation would probably be “and with thy spirit”, using the second person singular possessive pronoun which is nearly obsolete in English…

However the people’s response has the “tuo” or second person singular. If you really wish to push literalness, do we have to “go back” to the thee/thou/thine/thy sort of words?

“Thy” also has a sense of familiar, vs. formal address. “You” was used not just for second person plural, but also second person singular in a more formal situation. For instance, in Rudyard Kipling’s book “Kim,” the title character is at one point offended when a servant calls him “thou” rather than “you.”

In this case, the Latin tuo is also familiar (or at least is translated into the familiar form in other European languages), and so supports the use of “thy,” if you want to use the archaic English.

 

[palmas85]

I can only assume that the people who did the translantions from the Latin currently used, were not very good at their job… I would think that a first year student of Latin would not have made some of the errors that were made.

Of course there is always the argument that the changes and mistranslations were done on purpose with the aim of de-sanctifying the Mass itself. I personally don’t believe that line of reasoning, although a lot of people do. I always thought it was probably sheer incompetence at best or an attempt to “modernize” the language of the Mass that failed, at worst…

Since I actually studied Latin for several years, I knew what the correct translations were and I have always used them. I used to get a lot of turned heads and dirty looks in my direction though.

 

[steve99]

Brendan:

The distinction is theological. The priest acts not a person at Mass, but in persona Christi, as Christ Himself.

The priest asks that the Lord be with us as persons, we, as the faithful as the the Lord be with the priest as Spirit, to use the physical manifestation of the priest’s body to bring Christ present among us.

When we hear the Institutional Narrative, we are hearing the Christ Himself speak those words, but through the body of the priest.

We are asking that the Lord be with the priest in a way that the laity cannot participate in, and thus the difference. The ‘and with your Spirit’ highlights the difference between us and the priest and adds to the Mystery of the Mass.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like one of those times where people retro-fit some abstruse theological argument to back up something that is just plain silly or pointless.