Roman Catholic as well as Protestant (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist and Anglican/Episcopal) congregations have become so used to saying, “And also with you,” to the Priest or Minister (after he or she has said “The Lord be with you”) that few of their members realize what an odd and strange way it is to speak!
This response came into usage in the period after Vatican II when the Roman Catholic hierarchy was using commissions (often of liberal theologians) to render the Latin Mass into English – and not the English of the UK, or the English of the USA, but a kind of English that would represent the “English” of the whole English-speaking world. That is, one which would do what the English of Hollywood films seeks to do, to be understood wherever English is used from one end of the earth to the other.
And what the R C hierarchy hastily allowed into its new vernacular Mass, the Protestants hastily allowed into their new services/liturgies. It was a period when the wind blew and churches were blown by it, and only began to consider seriously of what the wind was about when it was too late! (The Vatican is now working on correcting & renewing the English of the Liturgy!)
Thus all the rules of basic translation of Latin as taught in schools to children were set aside in the interests of relevance, simplicity and novel linguistic theory. Here is the Latin of the Mass.
Priest: Dominus vobiscum
Congregation: Et cum spiritu tuo
As long has English had been spoken (and in the BCP of the C of E from 1549, and in translations of the Tridentine Mass from the 17th century) this had been universally rendered literally as:
Priest: The Lord be with you [you plural]
Congregation: And with thy spirit [thy, singular]
However, in the new fit-all occasions and types English of the 1970s the response of the Congregation became: And also with you [you here singular].
What happened to “spiritu tuo” (“thy spirit”, or ‘your [sing.] spirit’)? And where did “also” come from?
The answer is found from two directions. First, from the supposed academic area where some scholars argued that this ancient conversation in the Liturgy between priest and people was in reality just a simple greeting taken from what often occurred on the street. Thus it has no special meaning other than a friendly exchange of greeting and response. So a literal translation of “Et cum spiritu tuo” is not required; but rather (and here is the second direction) what is needed is a dynamic equivalent statement – thus “and also with you.”
So a theory of an exchange between priest and assembled faithful in the Mass together with a post 1960s theory of translating original languages come together to provide what is, in reality, an expression that one cannot imagine hearing in the real world as a form of greeting. “And also with you” sounds odd to this day to the person who is not used to it!
Is there another explanation of this exchange where the faithful say “And with thy/your spirit”? Of course there is! Here it is.
The exchange occurs within the Mass at given points and it is first of all an expression of a prayer-wish [ perhaps also an affirmation] by the priest for the (realized) presence of the Lord Jesus with his people (the Lord Jesus be with you) by His Spirit (the Paraclete); then, secondly, it is a prayer-wish [perhaps an affirmation] of the faithful that, as he performs the office of Celebrant in the Mass, the Lord (through His Spirit) will activate, as it were, the gift given to him in ordination and give him the divine unction, rightly before God to perform the office of priest and Celebrant on this solemn occasion. And then the whole assembly will be raised to heaven and feast at the heavenly Banquet!
How can so many intelligent people each Sunday use this silly modern form of exchange? Why this dumbing-down? Why this obvious rejection of simple rules of translation? Why this removal of a meaningful prayer-wish and affirmation from the Eucharist?
Regrettably, this is but one example of serious error in the modern forms of the Mass, Eucharist and Lord’s Supper in both the Roman and the Protestant Churches. Why are we satisfied with standards less than those of our grandparents and great-grandparents when it comes to basic English expression and simple doctrinal truth?
(see further Neither Archaic nor Obsolete by Lou Tarsitano & Peter Toon from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or www.edgewaysbooks.com )
The Revd Dr Peter Toon September 19, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment