Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[Rin]

From your quote:

But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength.

I guess we are all different. I read all of the first two links and simply do not see it in the light you do.

(My emphasis above.)

Yes, pp. Benedict points out that the “Virtual Council”, which fueled many of the efforts after the Council, including the liturgical reforms, is finally breaking down. But note that he says “50 years after the Council”. The widespread lack of understanding of the Council texts is one of the main themes in Benedict’s writings (as both pope and cardinal), and what I quoted needs to be seen in light of that.

Pope Benedict did not take any action that indicates he believed the implementation of the Council was all that far afield. Surely he saw the ways in which the Council was implemented poorly, but not to such a degree he intervened across the board with the liturgy.

(First, I’m sorry for not providing direct quotes here - this is all from books, and I left them with my parents last time I moved. I’ll remind myself to not leave them behind next time…)

Given the fact that pp. Benedict believes in slow, organic change of the liturgy, and heavily criticized the reform for not being organic, he would not have introduced any drastic changes. Even though he criticizes versus populum worship harshly, he admits that any sudden, drastic change would cause similar pain and upheaval as the opposite revolution created in the seventies. Therefore, he advocates (and introduced) a “liturgical ad orientem”, where everyone is centered on the crucifix in the center of the altar. His changed arrangement of the altar reflects this. His homilies on “turning towards the Lord” were clear about this. There is no doubt of his preference.

But there were also other, visible changes: He repeatedly celebrated Mass ad orientem (notably in the Sistine Chapel), everyone who received Communion from him had to do so kneeling and on the tongue (and everyone else, at least on the tongue), he refused using ugly vestments, he celebrated Mass almost exclusively in Latin (and the Sunday sung Mass in St. Peters was changed to Latin, whereas it was earlier in Italian, if I remember correctly), and so on. And not least, there was Summorum Pontifium, which was significant in that it made clear no bishop could prohibit any priest from celebrating the EF, for any reason, or place any other limitation on its use. Rome has made clear that this was not just to “please” a few, old, “sentimental” people, but a gift to the entire Church (and not least to priests).

But you’re right, there were no sweeping changes. However, given the fact that he has spoken against sweeping change for his entire “career”, it can’t be taken as evidence that he saw no need for change! It’s simply a sign that he believes in slow, well thought through, non-revolutionary change; the sweeping changes in the seventies made enough damage in the first place. The “reform of the reform” (a term coined by him as cardinal, if I remember correctly) has to happen slowly, and it can’t come from the top. It has to start among priests and the faithful, and for this reason, he set examples rather than enforce things. And indeed this “grassroot change” is happening - younger priests are almost consistently more liturgically traditional than their older “colleagues”.

What I do get from those two articles is a very balanced view of the good and the bad, in a form of historical reminiscence.

Obviously he’s balanced, I’ve implied nothing else.

But as I said above, those two articles have to be seen in context with what he says about liturgy in his writings, homilies and other statements.

It has been half a century and are on our fourth pope (discounting JP I) since then. It would seem that the sensus fidei is in a rather singular and clear direction. I do not see confusion, exempting a very small minority.

“When the Church goes in the wrong direction liturgically, it rarely lasts long - generally less than two centuries.” (Quote from a local, Orthodox priest)

We Latins live in too high paced societies to really understand time anymore. Fifty years is nothing, in many ways the Council is barely over. And we’re already seeing slow, organic liturgical change happening, in a more traditional direction. Just like Pope Benedict wanted.

Also note that the “very small minority” you’re speaking about is drastically younger on average than the satisfied majority. Among practicing young Catholics, those who want traditional liturgy (either the OF celebrated as it should be, or the EF) are not a “very small minority”, they’re often in the majority or at least a significant minority. And this percentage is even higher among young priests.

So I doubt the sensus fidei will be as singular as you say in the future. To be honest, I doubt we will know the “final” results of the Council until decades, if not a century or more, from now. This should be obvious; it has been like that after most important councils. Given that this one was simply pastoral, it should be even less of a surprise.

 

[pnewton]

“When the Church goes in the wrong direction liturgically, it rarely lasts long - generally less than two centuries.” (Quote from a local, Orthodox priest)

So I doubt the sensus fidei will be as singular as you say in the future.

I simply do not believe that first quote. I find it self-serving. We will see what the future holds, at least for our lifetime and respond accordingly. Suffice it to say I simply do not agree with you. There has be rumor devoid of substance for some sort of “going back” since I have been Catholic. When you find you book on the liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger, check out the introduction and see what he said about going back.

No, I simply believe the Holy Spirit has spoken. You may not, as is your prerogative. I have no strong preference either way. I wonder if there is a correlation between those who have an opinion on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church and those who have an preference in liturgy. We too often let our likes and dislikes shape our beliefs.

 

[Rin]

I simply do not believe that first quote. I find it self-serving.

It is simply a historical observation by an Eastern Orthodox priest (who could, by the way, care less about the Latin Rite). His point is right, nevertheless - a few decades are nothing in the life of the Church.

We will see what the future holds, at least for our lifetime and respond accordingly. Suffice it to say I simply do not agree with you. There has be rumor devoid of substance for some sort of “going back” since I have been Catholic. When you find you book on the liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger, check out the introduction and see what he said about going back.

You’re jumping to conclusions. I don’t want to “go back”, and I’ve repeatedly stated the need for organic development. But the fact that restorationism is wrong, does not make progressionism right. Ratzinger is as critical to the reform as he is to those who want to “go back”. And the fact that he doesn’t want to “go back”, does not mean that he doesn’t want certain elements to return; especially ad orientem worship, which was a recurring theme in his pontificate as well as in his writings as cardinal. But again, he also says such a change can’t be enforced, it has to happen over time. Sadly, people seem to misinterpret his patience, and his preference of setting an example over forced change, as satisfaction.

No, I simply believe the Holy Spirit has spoken. You may not, as is your prerogative. I have no strong preference either way. I wonder if there is a correlation between those who have an opinion on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church and those who have an preference in liturgy. We too often let our likes and dislikes shape our beliefs.

You’re obviously free to believe what you believe. But if we were to believe that every change that lasted a few decades was the product of the voice of the Holy Spirit, then a lot of abuses, oddities and even heresies were the product of said voice. It is a dangerous notion, and comes close to fatalism; it implies that any criticism of any “long”-lasting development is criticism against the Holy Spirit.

The promise given to St. Peter by Our Lord does not say the Church will never go in the wrong direction. It says She will not fall into heresy, and that She will not be defeated by the enemy. A liturgical detour is not a violation of that promise.

Lastly, as for how my beliefs are shaped, I used to be a big fan of the reforms, as that was how I was taught in my preparations to convert. My current opinion on liturgy was formed by actually reading the Council texts in college, and then reading Ratzinger. Until that point I had only read commentary on the Council, and I was shocked to find that the Council texts were in complete discrepancy with the commentaries I had read. The commentaries seemed to speak of an entirely different Council than what actually took place, which is exactly what Ratzinger speaks of.

 

[ProVobis]

No, I simply believe the Holy Spirit has spoken. You may not, as is your prerogative. I have no strong preference either way. I wonder if there is a correlation between those who have an opinion on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church and those who have an preference in liturgy. We too often let our likes and dislikes shape our beliefs.

pn, I’d be careful here. Protestants also very much believe in the Holy Spirit guiding them.

 

[pnewton]

pn, I’d be careful here. Protestants also very much believe in the Holy Spirit guiding them.

The Catholic Church is unique in the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide them in all truth. Protestants, at least most, do not grant any authority to such guidance, but have no authority, except the Scripture itself. Thus, the guiding of the Holy Spirit is individual.

For the record, as God does not abandon us even in our error, I do not doubt that God seeks to use even the schism of the Protestant Reformation to achieve His glory. Applying this to the liturgy, God would use even mistakes made in the liturgy to move His Church forward. However, as I do not see this sort of correction process to any great degree, I do not think the Church is really off track. No, everything isn’t perfect, as it never is, but I soundly, thoroughly and completely reject any sense that we are in some sort of liturgical crisis. The Church is prospering where people are open to the gospel and is struggling where money and comfort choke out the seed of the gospel.

 

[pnewton]

You’re obviously free to believe what you believe. But if we were to believe that every change that lasted a few decades was the product of the voice of the Holy Spirit, then a lot of abuses, oddities and even heresies were the product of said voice. It is a dangerous notion, and comes close to fatalism; it implies that any criticism of any “long”-lasting development is criticism against the Holy Spirit.

I do not view a minority of abuses as an indication that something is not of God. In fact, anything that is good will be attacked. I am also not saying that I believe the Holy Spirit must insure that any change is a good one, only that in the case of the liturgy today, it seems to bear witness to the Fruits of the Spirit, by which we are to judge whether something is of the Spirit.

The mere fact that one criticism of the Church is that it is the “Church of Nice”, which mirrors exactly what St. Paul said were the fruits of the Spirit, bears witness that we are doing what God wants.

 

[ProVobis]

Applying this to the liturgy, God would use even mistakes made in the liturgy to move His Church forward. However, as I do not see this sort of correction process to any great degree, I do not think the Church is really off track.

Though it is a discipline, I don’t think there were any mistakes in the liturgy. If we admit to any, then we call into question whether it is valid. Translations or abuses are, of course, another matter, whether of the older rite or the newer one.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do not view a minority of abuses as an indication that something is not of God. In fact, anything that is good will be attacked. I am also not saying that I believe the Holy Spirit must insure that any change is a good one, only that in the case of the liturgy today, it seems to bear witness to the Fruits of the Spirit, by which we are to judge whether something is of the Spirit.

The mere fact that one criticism of the Church is that it is the “Church of Nice”, which mirrors exactly what St. Paul said were the fruits of the Spirit, bears witness that we are doing what God wants.

When did St Paul ever say that one (or all) of the fruits of the Spirit was/were “NICE?”

Of course, linguistically speaking, ‘nice’ started out as being a kind of discrimination. Now it’s a catchall phrase for being ‘sweet, nonjudgmental, and loving’.

But is it really?

If somebody asks me what the Church teaches about homosexuality, and I respond that homosexual people are children of God, and are not to be persecuted, and that they are called to chastity just as non-married heterosexual people are. . .

and somebody then asks if they can be married to another gay person of the same sex, and I say that the Church teaches this is not moral and there is no such thing as gay marriage,

I will CERTAINLY be called ‘not nice’.

If I am ‘nice’ and say that well golly gee whiskers, I can’t POSSIBLY ask a Catholic person who is contemplating gay marriage to be heroic enough to abide by Catholic teaching because it’s just too hard, and after all, it’s his conscience, right, and the Church ‘might change’. . .

I will be called NICE.

Problem is, as a ‘nice’ person I have just rejected Christ’s teachings to proclaim TRUTH. I have just disrespected the gay person by ‘judging’ that he cannot POSSIBLY be strong enough to abide by Truth. My ‘niceness’ if it is taken as an indication by a practicing Catholic that sin should be accepted in order to be ‘nice’ is endangering my soul, and the soul of the person I am refusing to be truthful with, and any others who ‘listen’ to me because I’m being ‘nice’ and saying what they want to hear.

 

[pnewton]

When did St Paul ever say that one (or all) of the fruits of the Spirit was/were “NICE?”
.

In his letter to the Galations:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

So when I want to see if something is of the Holy Spirit, test the spirits as we are told to do, I ask,

Is it loving?
Is it joyful?
Is it peaceful?
Is it patient?
Is it kind?
Is it good?
Is it faithful?
is it gentle?
Is it self-controlled?

I think the liturgy today, and the directions it has gone, fits well with these fruits that we can use as a Spirit-ometer.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In his letter to the Galations:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

So when I want to see if something is of the Holy Spirit, test the spirits as we are told to do, I ask,

Is it loving?
Is it joyful?
Is it peaceful?
Is it patient?
Is it kind?
Is it good?
Is it faithful?
is it gentle?
Is it self-controlled?

I think the liturgy today, and the directions it has gone, fits well with these fruits that we can use as a Spirit-ometer.

Your experience of the liturgy today is very different from mine. You have been fortunate to live in an area where the Mass has been ‘what it should be’. I have spent close to 40 years except for one brief halcyon period in Virginia in an area where the Masses have been rife with abuses and continue to be so.

Self control? No way. Gentle? No. Faithful? No. Good? No. “Kind?” If by kind you mean doesn’t hurt people’s feelings because it tells them there is nothing they can do wrong, it’s impossible to commit a mortal sin, and God is all about following your conscience, YOU decide, yes. If by kind you mean telling the truth in a gentle but firm way so that the person does not continue in error, hurting himself, God, and others. . .then NO.

Patient? no. Peaceful? no. Joyful? SOME people love Masses with abuses --that’s how the abuses get ‘carried on’, because they make people ‘feel good’. But for those who long again for truth, instead of being joyful, we weep.

Above all --LOVING?

Love is not about having things ‘our way’, or being more ‘loving’ than God by ignoring ‘hard teachings’ and sugar-coating or slanting His teachings. Love is about being faithful, helping each other when it’s hard by sharing their burden, not proclaiming the burden (of sin) isn’t sinful at all.

As my 85 year old mother says, “Going to Mass now is like going to a Protestant service (many of which follow a similar format to Mass, including a penitential rite, Gloria, Nicene Creed, Our Father, even Eucharistic prayers). The priest would have been a great ‘preacher’, but if I wanted a protestant service, I would have gone to a protestant church. All I hear now is people yelling “Amen”, and how God loves us and we need to love each other and do nice things. And GOD is usually only mentioned at the end of how we need to ‘be Church’ for each other, as a kind of ‘throwaway’ remark, on the order of, 'Now go follow Christ and be nice kiddies”. If you could only ‘hear’ what was going on and not see that people were inside a church, this could be a 12 step meeting or ‘gathering’ anywhere; there is nothing that identifies people as CATHOLIC.

This is the ‘fruit’ of the experimental liturgies in THIS area. . .every Church is DIFFERENT. You don’t go to Sunday Mass, you go to "St So and So’ because it’s ‘green’, or you like the choir, or you like the bingo; and you go to ‘Father X"s Mass’ because all the priests do it THEIR way. Father A always has the kids around the altar, so a lot of young families like him. Father B tells the funniest stories. . .lots of people like to be entertained. Father C never makes people feel uncomfortable about missing Masses because he always THANKS people for coming. Father D always comes ‘down the aisles’ and does ‘pop quizzes’. . .Father E is Irish and always makes sure to talk about Irish customs, Father F is a sports fanatic and always brings in the Boston Red Sox in his homilies. . .

One priest always does the ‘fast Mass’ (Penitential Rite C, Eucharistic Prayer 2).

One priest always says “for all” even though it’s ‘for many’.

One always starts ‘sisters and brothers’ to appease the feminists. . .

One priest likes to ‘change up’ the Mass to encourage 'active participation (GIRM be damned). . .

You can find a priest for just about any secular ‘fad’ you like --the sporting priest, the priest who always peppers his homilies by talking about links you should check out on your computer, the priest who is all about ‘the poor’, the priest who is all about ‘the young’, the priest who is all about ‘community’. . .

what you can’t find is the priest who ‘says the red and does the black’ and preaches ‘uncomfortable but necessary’ doctrine.

Sigh.

 

[pnewton]

, YOU decide, yes. If by kind you mean telling the truth in a gentle but firm way so that the person does not continue in error, hurting himself, God, and others. . .then NO.

Above all --LOVING?

Love is not about having things ‘our way’, or being more ‘loving’ than God by ignoring ‘hard teachings’ and sugar-coating or slanting His teachings. Love is about being faithful, helping each other when it’s hard by sharing their burden, not proclaiming the burden (of sin) isn’t sinful at all.

The conflict I see here, and you can decide for yourself if you agree or not, is the things that I see being taught “hard” by those opposed to the liturgy today have little to do with sin, error or church doctrine. The fruit of liturgical griping is almost exclusively over matters of discipline, and in some case, tastes. I think it unfair to bring up homosexuality, for example, because that has zero to do with liturgy. You do not see threads here where people argue over the best way to address homosexuality in Mass. What you will find is people who lose charity over posture, manner of reception, type of music, dress, form of liturgy, language use, etc.

So in these matters, I see the liturgy which leads us to charity, gentleness, patience, and generally being nice to be a product of the working of the Holy Spirit. That which makes us angry, uncharitable and impatient, as the opposite.

We can only answer to *ourselves *which way we see the three groups here, those that advocate for the older form, those that advocate for the newer form and those that do not care, express themselves in spirituality. If nothing else, I would hope that our own witness here might temper our words.

 

[Rin]

For the record, as God does not abandon us even in our error, (…)God seeks to use(…)

Obviously, God would use everything to move us forward - but that doesn’t mean we’re always on the right track.

However, as I do not see this sort of correction process to any great degree(…)

Again, your time perspective is lacking. Worse things than the liturgical reform went on for centuries before being corrected.

No, everything isn’t perfect, as it never is, but I soundly,(…)reject(…)that we are in(…) liturgical crisis. The Church is prospering where people are open to the gospel and is struggling where money(…)

If you take a look at Europe, you’ll see that the Church prospers where the liturgy is more traditional. Not necessarily in the EF, though; where I live, the OF is generally celebrated beautifully, and the Church also prospers. My objection is based on the numerous loopholes opening for abuse (and more often, laziness), and simply on the fact that the changes weren’t mandated by the Council, and that some of them are deeply problematic. The change was not simply a few prayers; it was structural. Which is why we need to go forward with the Mass the Council wanted, when the Church is ready for it.

I do not view a minority of abuses as an indication that something is not of God.

If you think abuses are in the minority, you haven’t traveled enough. No need to go to Europe, by the way, it’s actually worse many places in the States.

In fact, anything that is good will be attacked.

Indeed. I see very few attack the newer Mass, though, which is generally an argument presented for the change - only a minority are against it! However, the older Mass is often attacked as something unclean, something to which you can’t adhere without being a judgemental, anti-semitic, hating Integrist - this is simply false, a minority of its adherents are like that.

The Catholic Church is unique in the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide them in all truth. Protestants, (…)the guiding of the Holy Spirit is individual.

You’re wrong about this. Yes, some “low-church” Protestants believe only in individual guidance. But the Lutherans, Anglicans and other European traditions very much believe that the Holy Spirit guides (their idea of) the Church. Many European Evangelicals also have adopted this belief.

in the case of the liturgy today, it seems to bear witness to the Fruits of the Spirit(…)

(…)fits well with these fruits that we can use as a Spirit-ometer.

You should, as ProVobis said, be careful with this kind of argumentation, as it is typical of Protestant thinking, and it is exactly the way I see them argue to justify things on collective as well as individual levels.

The problem with “looking at the fruits” is that it is almost always a selective process. I see We are Church boast about the fruits of their meetings, yet most of their members are retired. I see more regular, reform-defending folks boasting about the fruits of the reform, and yet, Mass attendance is lower than it ever was. Generally, you can pick and choose whatever you like to support your conclusion if you go by that line of thinking.

The better way to assess things is through BeneRatzinger’s Hermeneutic of Continuity, and in the case of liturgy, we should always ask who Mass is about. Liturgy is something given to us, not something devised by us. It is not ours to play with. It should always be centered on God. If it centered on ourselves, our community, the priest or anything other than God, then it is not of God.

(…)the things that I see being taught “hard” by those opposed to the liturgy today have little to do with sin, error or church doctrine.(…)What you will find is people who lose charity over posture, (…)etc.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Liturgy is about doctrine, and this was an important theme of Benedict’s pontificate.

I agree that homosexuality was a bad example, though. Some of the most hateful anti-gay individuals I have ever seen would also defend the reform. Many adherents to the older liturgy are well aware they themselves are sinners (which is a central theme of the older Mass), and look mildly on other sinners.

What liturgy does say something about is the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and so on. When you see people worry about posture, manner of reception, &c (it is interesting how even opening your mouth about things like this is seen as “losing charity”, while people can say the vilest things about certain other groups because they “love the sinner but hate the sin”), it is because they know it will change people’s attitudes over time. Those things were there because of our teaching. When taken away, the teachings will be challenged over time.

So in these matters, I see the liturgy which leads us to charity, (…) product of the working of the Holy Spirit. That which makes us angry, (…) the opposite.

This is also about selection. And your implication is rather extreme: That the Mass we celebrated for around 1500 years was not the working of the Holy Spirit.

In my own comparison of “conservatives” from the two liturgical traditions, I find (some, not all) individuals of the OF “neocon” type to be among the most judgemental, uncharitable, least likeable individuals I can think of. They’re often not aware of their own sinfulness, and hence pass judgement on a whim.

The older Mass constantly reminds us (and even more so, the celebrant) that we are sinners. For this reason, I find (most, not all) adherents of it to be generally humble, slow to judge and patient. I wish I was anywhere close to the attitude held by many (but sadly not all) of them.

 

[pnewton]

You should, as ProVobis said, be careful with this kind of argumentation, as it is

 

[Rin]

That’s simple name calling

I expected you to say that sooner or later.

In this thread, you have implicitly accused me and those who agree with me of not being obedient to the Holy Spirit, of being judgemental, impatient and angry, etc etc. Of course written ambiguously enough so as to be able to deny it.

Yet, when people more directly point out your argumentative technique, or the implications of what you say, you falsely accuse them of “name calling”, essentially a silencing technique since name calling is against the forum rules. We’ve been over this a few times before, but on completely different subjects - I’ll avoid dragging those into this thread.

sort of a Catholic version of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law is only valid when the comparison to Hitler (or, in this case Protestants) is invalid. The comparison originally drawn by ProVobis in this thread is not invalid, hence said law would not apply.

Labels do nothing, especially when the just beg the question.

I did not label you.

I am totally comfortable using the Scripture and a well-formed conscience, as per Catholic doctrine. I have to say, that this sort of name-calling is exactly what I was referring to. Nothing I has said is a contradiction to Catholic doctrine.

First, I’m not resorting to name-calling. You are, however, resorting to silencing techniques.

I did not say that you have said anything in contradiction to Catholic doctrine. I’ve said the liturgical reform is problematic and in discontinuity with Tradition, but I have not said it is contrary to doctrine. I did however say it weakens doctrine, which is something completely else. And I said that the “fruits” argument is flawed, because it can be used to defend anything.

I will use Scripture to form my conscience and believe it to be an invaluable tool for all Catholics. One of the best things to come out of Vatican II or since then anyway, is a resurgence of Catholics using Scripture.

Nothing wrong with that, but it can’t be the only tool. And, to be honest, while Scripture is invaluable as you say, with the amount of shaky exegesis (not from you, just to be clear) on this forum, I sometimes, in darker hours, wish the Church again would restrict access to those with education in Theology. But I realize those people are in the minority, so you’re right, it is invaluable, if guided by Tradition.

Yes, and??? Nothing I mentioned has anything to do with doctrine. Everything I mentioned is liturgically acceptable. Ergo, unless the Church is teaching false doctrine through liturgy, then the differences mentioned cannot contradict doctrine.

First off, you said:

the things that I see being taught “hard” by those opposed to the liturgy today have little to do with sin, error or church doctrine. The fruit of liturgical griping is almost exclusively over matters of discipline, and in some case, tastes.

I responded by saying liturgy does in fact affect doctrine, as was a theme in Benedict’s pontificate.

But I did not say the differences contradict doctrine. I said they weaken doctrine. Things are not always either-or or black and white, there are degrees of things. The liturgical reform is not counter to doctrine in any way, but it expresses some doctrine ambiguously or in some cases just leaves it out. That is problematic, but not counter to doctrine.

In any case I think we’re done here, since I’m generally more interested in discussing the matter at hand than the people involved.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well I hope we’re not going too far afield, here.

Now actually I like the current translation far more than the old (1970) one and I find ITS fruits to be excellent WHEN they are properly implemented.

I just wish I could see AND hear it being used!

Do I think there will be another translation? Not for some time, and hopefully it won’t be the ‘Twitter’ Mass or the Mass in 'colloquial speak" (Instead of “The Lord be with You” “and with your Spirit” we’d have “Me and Jesus say hi”, “Ditto”. )