N
Nagoda
Guest
Here is something I’ve never understood the reason for:
In the tridentine, eastern liturgies and soon to be reformed ordinary form, the latin states “dominus vobiscum” (the lord is with you, although why there is no ‘est’ between the subject nominative and ablative plural pronoun i don’t know either. shouldnt there be a linking verb in there as well?) and the response has been traditionally “et cum spiritu tuo” (and with your spirit). what is the reason behind just “and with your spirit”? why is the lord with JUST the priest’s spirit? i always liked the NO (and also with you, “et quoque tecum”) because to me it implied the lord was with the priest’s physical and emotional person as well as his spirit. the traditional response always seemed to be theologically lacking to me, unlike what appears to be the fuller implication of the NO.
what is the reason behind and defense for using “and with your spirit”? in depth answers are most welcome. thanks.
In the tridentine, eastern liturgies and soon to be reformed ordinary form, the latin states “dominus vobiscum” (the lord is with you, although why there is no ‘est’ between the subject nominative and ablative plural pronoun i don’t know either. shouldnt there be a linking verb in there as well?) and the response has been traditionally “et cum spiritu tuo” (and with your spirit). what is the reason behind just “and with your spirit”? why is the lord with JUST the priest’s spirit? i always liked the NO (and also with you, “et quoque tecum”) because to me it implied the lord was with the priest’s physical and emotional person as well as his spirit. the traditional response always seemed to be theologically lacking to me, unlike what appears to be the fuller implication of the NO.
what is the reason behind and defense for using “and with your spirit”? in depth answers are most welcome. thanks.