This greeting was the conclusion to the letter Galatians. I see nothing that suggests Paul was only addressing the ordained among them.
In its original context, sure. But the Church – and not just the Roman Church, but the whole Church – has used such a greeting (“and with your spirit”) for her ordained ministers. Historians have produced that explanation, and I’m inclined to believe them.
Language is something that changes organically over time. … what is being proposed is an effort to fight against changes in language and reverting back to something that has fallen out of disuse.
While vernacular languages change over time, Latin stopped changing some time ago, which is why the Latin text of the Missal from 1969 has barely changed, and why the Latin text of the Missal of 1570 changed so little between then and 1962. Yes, the
rite itself underwent organic developments, but not because Latin words had changed their meaning.
I contest that the English translation from 1969 which is still around today was, in many ways, a failure to
translate and rather an exercise in
selective interpretation. Consider that the Italian, French, Spanish, and German translations of the 1969 all rendered “and with your spirit” accurately (E con il tuo spirito; Et avec votre esprit; Y con tu espíritu; Und mit deinem Geiste). The only major language to fail to do so was English… and yet if you look at a private missal from the 40s, 50s, or 60s – or even the short-lived English Mass of 1965 – you’ll see “and with your spirit”.
It is not that “and with your spirit” has “fallen out of disuse”. Rather, it was thrown out unjustly. It was considered too arcane and old-fashioned for modern English-speakers to understand. And as for “reverting back to something that has fallen out of disuse,” I call your attention to Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said:
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that …
elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. (CSL 50)
I would classify the present English translation as an “accident of history”. It’s less of a translation and more of an interpretation-explanation. Whole words, concepts, and
sentences of the Latin text are dropped. Some of the Latin is absolutely butchered.
I think we need to be careful in attaching to much importance to what words are used in the liturgy and should throw around a word like “sacred” very carefully. We are talking about a man made script for worship, not infallible doctrine nor the inspired word of God (though, of course, that inspired word is used through the liturgy). While continuity and precedent should be given some weight, I would reject an appeal based primarily on the notion that we did it that way for a long long time.
The Church
does have a sacred vocabulary… in Latin. The same must be cultivated in the vernacular; that’s what
Liturgiam Authenticam says. And the liturgy is not a wholly human “script”. The earthly liturgy is a participation in the heavenly liturgy (people like Scott Hahn have pointed out the similarities between the Eucharistic liturgies of the Church and the book of Revelation), and it is rightly called in the Eastern tradition the “
Divine Liturgy”. It is the action of the whole Christ, head and body; in that sense, it shares in the glory and mystery of his hypostatic union: it is both fully human and fully divine.
What we say at Mass
is doctrinal, and as such we must make sure it is accurate. It is
inaccurate to say Jesus “by the power of the Holy Spirit [was] born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” Jesus became man at his
conception, at his
incarnation, and
not at his
birth. The word “born” (
natus) appears nowhere in the Latin or Greek Nicene Creed, so why does it appear in the present English translation? The
whole Creed is a identity-faith-prayer (like the Jews’
Shema) which states what the Church believes. And when the Church uses texts from Scripture (slightly modified in some cases, yes) in the words of the liturgy, it is important that the Church’s choice of words be respected, if
only so that the connection between the liturgy and the inspired word of God be manifest to her people. (Catholic biblical knowledge is on the rise, thank God.)
While continuity and precedent should be given some weight, I would reject an appeal based primarily on the notion that we did it that way for a long long time.
Yes, antiquarianism is rejected as a basis for liturgical development. See Pope Pius XII’s
Mediator Dei about that. And yet, the fact that we
were still doing the liturgy essentially the same way for centuries and centuries should be a sign that it wasn’t wrong in form. There has been much written on the organic development of the liturgy.
Many people like to say that the reformed Mass liturgy is closer to the early Church, as if “older” is necessarily “better”. That’s antiquarianism. There’s a
reason why the liturgy developed, and simply rolling back centuries of development is mechanical and inorganic. The funny thing is, liturgical progressives are thrilled to do something the way they imagine it was done in the first few centuries, but cannot stand to do something the way it was 50 years ago. (Their threshold for recent past goes back only 40 years.) Perhaps they just want to avoid things that feel “Roman”, which is an odd way to react to the Roman Rite.
I hope that in 50 years, we can look back at the 1969 translation as an unfortunate accident of history and settle into language and sacrament more wholeistically celebrated.
At least Vox Clara and the new ICEL, as well as the CDWDS are preventing this pothole from becoming a sinkhole!:thumbsup!
There has been complete silence in my diocese from the Cardinal and the priests. But I tell everyone I know at Church and at my kids’ Catholic school, my CCE classes and even sitting around chatting to people. So, in my little world, I am sure I have whittled that 90% number down quite a bit. If even some of those people tell others, who tell others, etc. we can start a little buzz. People will start asking questions and the Church leaders will have to respond.