MERGED: And With Your Spirit

  • Thread starter Thread starter surritter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will follow the rules and say “and with your spirit” as loudly as anyone, and I will try to explain it to others when it comes up. However, I think there is a significant downside. I don’t think that most of the congregation who are good enough to attend Mass at all will appreciate the subtlety, nor do I think they have a personal experience of the Lord working through the priest’s spirit. Further I think that most who don’t bother to attend Mass will find the change silly and be further alienated by a ritual that has little meaning for them.

To be rather blunt, it seems that the church has much more critical issues to address these days and to spend such energy on semantics will reinforce the view in the minds of many that the church is a bit out of touch with the real needs of the people.

That being said, I will continue to be an active participating church going member!
 
JM3 said:
A Deacon is also a ‘sacred minister’, so he does have a ‘special relationship with God’s spirit’.

Can. 1015 §1. Each person is to be ordained to the presbyterate or the diaconate by his proper bishop or with legitimate dimissorial letters from him.
Click to expand...
Thanks. So this should be a fair statement: Though a deacon is not “in persona Christi,” as the priest is, he does have the Spirit of God within him, in a lesser way yet still distinct from the laity, because of his Holy Orders.
 
surritter said:
Thanks. So this should be a fair statement: Though a deacon is not “in persona Christi,” as the priest is, he does have the Spirit of God within him, in a lesser way yet still distinct from the laity, because of his Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
I would not say ‘in a lesser way’. That would be inaccurate.
 
So the deacon has God’s Spirit in the same way as the priest; I’ll buy that. Yet it is still not the fullness of Holy Orders (neither is the priest’s, because only a bishop has that fullness). But I guess, you’re right; we can’t really parse God’s Spirit in a quantitative way.
 
JM3 said:
It is a fair question, in that there is a misunderstanding of the diaconate and that they are ordained ministers.

🙂
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of the “spirit” of Vatican II. 🙂

Seriously, though, from my Latin dictionaries:

spiritus - “breathing, breath, vigor, breath of life, life”

Curiously enough if I want to translate back to the Latin:

“spirit” - umbra, animus, anima (in other words, there is a better Latin word for spirit as we think of it.)
 
surritter said:
So the deacon has God’s Spirit in the same way as the priest; I’ll buy that. Yet it is still not the fullness of Holy Orders (neither is the priest’s, because only a bishop has that fullness). But I guess, you’re right; we can’t really parse God’s Spirit in a quantitative way.
Click to expand...
CCC

1554 "The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons."32 Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . the diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:

Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church.33
 
ProVobis said:
You must be thinking of the “spirit” of Vatican II. 🙂

Seriously, though, from my Latin dictionaries:

spiritus - “breathing, breath, vigor, breath of life, life”

Curiously enough if I want to translate back to the Latin:

“spirit” - umbra, animus, anima (in other words, there is a better Latin word for spirit as we think of it.)
Click to expand...
"how we think of it’ is not the point. Understanding the meaning of what is being said to us is. In other words, how somebody else is thinking of it.

I don’t think I’m quallified to teach latin to the Vatican. 😃
 
brotherjoe said:
I will follow the rules and say “and with your spirit” as loudly as anyone, and I will try to explain it to others when it comes up. However, I think there is a significant downside. I don’t think that most of the congregation who are good enough to attend Mass at all will appreciate the subtlety, nor do I think they have a personal experience of the Lord working through the priest’s spirit. Further I think that most who don’t bother to attend Mass will find the change silly and be further alienated by a ritual that has little meaning for them.

To be rather blunt, it seems that the church has much more critical issues to address these days and to spend such energy on semantics will reinforce the view in the minds of many that the church is a bit out of touch with the real needs of the people.

That being said, I will continue to be an active participating church going member!
Click to expand...
This simply sounds like more speaking of the Church as if it were merely another human-made social organization, designed to function as the United Way does. It is not; it is the Church that Our Lord established Himself, and it calls us to repentance and holiness.

Come to think of it, that approach started with Judas, did it not, when he was more concerned about the oil being sold and money given to the poor, rather than Our Lord being annointed and ultimately prepared for His own passion?
 
brotherjoe said:
To be rather blunt, it seems that the church has much more critical issues to address these days and to spend such energy on semantics will reinforce the view in the minds of many that the church is a bit out of touch with the real needs of the people.

That being said, I will continue to be an active participating church going member!
Click to expand...
It seems that this comment is rather out of touch with the way the Church actually translated the Roman Missal in to English. There are over one billion Catholics in the world. There are eleven members of ICEL, the group who did the translating. That is infinitesimally small.

I don’t like how people act like the Church spent billions of dollars and thousands of people on this, as if it was the Church’s number one priority for years, and that they neglected everything else in that time. Not true in the slightest.
 
YoungTradCath said:
It seems that this comment is rather out of touch with the way the Church actually translated the Roman Missal in to English. There are over one billion Catholics in the world. There are eleven members of ICEL, the group who did the translating. That is infinitesimally small.

I don’t like how people act like the Church spent billions of dollars and thousands of people on this, as if it was the Church’s number one priority for years, and that they neglected everything else in that time. Not true in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I share your sentiments. The percentage of English-speaking Catholics who actually go to Mass in the world is relatively small and even those few are of different countries with many different (and sometimes opposing) dialects. And most of them learn English as a second or third language recognizing very few words with more than two or three syllables. Reading scores are dropping and the study of English grammar and literature is on a decline. Meantime universities are expanding their linguistics curricula and Latin is now the third most studied foreign language, so maybe there’s hope.
 
Chatter163 said:
This simply sounds like more speaking of the Church as if it were merely another human-made social organization, designed to function as the United Way does. It is not; it is the Church that Our Lord established Himself, and it calls us to repentance and holiness.

Come to think of it, that approach started with Judas, did it not, when he was more concerned about the oil being sold and money given to the poor, rather than Our Lord being annointed and ultimately prepared for His own passion?
Click to expand...
You got me right. Church officials make administrative decisions all the time and are no more infallible in that respect than anyone else. Nothing to do with Judas.
 
Few English speaking Catholics realize that when the Novus Ordo English liturgical translators, and I’m thinking here originally Annibale Bugnini then ICEL brought about And Also With You a terrible translation. It was only made for Catholic English speaking people.

(And Also With You) doesn’t translate properly in French, Spanish, German or Italian.
 
Well, “the Lord BE with you” doesn’t sound like accurate grammar, either.

Most people would say that it should be one of two things:
“MAY the Lord be with you.”
“The Lord IS with you.”
 
surritter said:
Well, “the Lord BE with you” doesn’t sound like accurate grammar, either.

Most people would say that it should be one of two things:
“MAY the Lord be with you.”
“The Lord IS with you.”
Click to expand...
Yes.

“Dominus tecum” is translated “The Lord IS with you” in the Hail Mary.

Also in the Polish, “Pan z wami.” (The Lord is with you.) That the Lord is with us is fact, no maybe’s.

The spirit or peace or glory of the Lord, however, is another matter.
 
surritter said:
Well, “the Lord BE with you” doesn’t sound like accurate grammar, either.

Most people would say that it should be one of two things:
“MAY the Lord be with you.”
“The Lord IS with you.”
Click to expand...
“The Lord be with you” is perfectly fine grammar. The “be” is a subjunctive, expressing a wish, and no, it does not need to be coupled with “may.” See, e.g., § 219 of this grammar.

A similar example can be found in the line “God rest you merry, gentlemen,” where “rest” is a subjunctive, and to “rest” somebody is an archaic expression meaning “keep or make” them. A more modern phrasing might have been “May God keep you merry, gentlemen.” Clearly, though, the word “may” is not necessary to fill out the expression in traditional English grammar.
 
MarkThompson said:
“The Lord be with you” is perfectly fine grammar. The “be” is a subjunctive, expressing a wish, and no, it does not need to be coupled with “may.” See, e.g., § 219 of this grammar.

A similar example can be found in the line “God rest you merry, gentlemen,” where “rest” is a subjunctive, and to “rest” somebody is an archaic expression meaning “keep or make” them. A more modern phrasing might have been “May God keep you merry, gentlemen.” Clearly, though, the word “may” is not necessary to fill out the expression in traditional English grammar.
Click to expand...
RIght. I brought it up to point out that most people would think it to be bad grammar. But it ain’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top