AND WITH YOUR SPIRIT, Et cum spiritu tuo, (New Missal liturgical translations)

USCCB.org/ ^ | 2008 | USCCB

[Salvation]

Notes on the New Translation of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia
(from the August 2005 Newsletter – © 2008 USCCB)

While there are many and complex elements of the translation yet to be decided by the Bishops, the translation of several phrases in the Order of Mass have been previously decided by the instruction Liturgiam authenticam. Among these are “certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony…” Therefore, the response Et cum spiritu tuo is “to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible."1 Commentaries for a popular understanding of these two elements of the Liturgy are provided here and may be reproduced freely with the customary copyright acknowledgement by our readers.

 

AND WITH YOUR SPIRIT

Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :

Dominus vobiscum
et cum spiritu tuo

Since 1970, this has been translated as:

The Lord be with you.
And also with you.

As a part of the revised translation of the Roman Missal, now taking place, the translation of this dialogue has been revised, to read:

The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.

 

 

 

 

Latin Text	1970 Translation	New Translation
Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.	The Lord be with you. And also with you.	The Lord be with you. And with your spirit.

Since it is clear that the change to “and with your spirit” is a significant and wide ranging change in a longstanding liturgical practice, the following questions are provided to clarify the reasons for the change and the meaning of the dialogue itself.

 

1. Why has the response et cum spiritu tuo been translated as and with your spirit?
The retranslation was necessary because it is a more correct rendering of et cum spiritu tuo. Recent scholarship has recognized the need for a more precise translation capable of expressing the full meaning of the Latin text.

2. What about the other major languages? Do they have to change their translations?
No. English is the only major language of the Roman Rite which did not translate the word spiritu. The Italian (E con il tuo spirito), French (Et avec votre esprit), Spanish (Y con tu espíritu) and German (Und mit deinem Geiste) renderings of 1970 all translated the Latin word spiritu precisely.

3. Has the Holy See ever addressed this question?
In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published an instruction entitled, Liturgiam authenticam, subtitled, On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy. The instruction directs specifically that: “Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible, as for example the words of the people’s response Et cum spiritu tuo, or the expression mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa in the Act of Penance of the Order of Mass.”2

4. Where does this dialogue come from?
The response et cum spiritu tuo is found in the Liturgies of both East and West, from the earliest days of the Church. One of the first instances of its use is found in the Traditio Apostolica of Saint Hippolytus, composed in Greek around AD 215.

5. How is this dialogue used in the Liturgy?
The dialogue is only used between the priest and the people, or exceptionally, between the deacon and the people. The greeting is never used in the Roman Liturgy between a non-ordained person and the gathered assembly.

6. Why does the priest mean when he says “The Lord be with you”?
By greeting the people with the words “The Lord be with you,” the priest expresses his desire that the dynamic activity of God’s spirit be given to the people of God, enabling them to do the work of transforming the world that God has entrusted to them.

7. What do the people mean when they respond “and with your spirit”?
The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested that spiritu refers to the gift of the spirit he received at ordination. In their response, the people assure the priest of the same divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church.

8. What further reading could you suggest on this dialogue?
For those who wish to pursue this issue from a more scholarly perspective, they might consult:

• J.A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: its Origins and Development, trans. F.A. Brunner C.Ss.R. (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1986), 363.

• Michael K. Magee, The Liturgical Translation of the Response “Et cum spiritu tuo”: Communio 29 (Spring 2002) 152-171.

• W.C. Van Unnik, “Dominus Vobiscum:” The Background of a Liturgical Formula: A.J.B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays (Manchester, University Press, 1959) 270-305.

1 Liturgiam authenticam, no. 56.

2 Liturgiam authenticam, no. 56

 

[Unam Sanctam]

I don’t think you can really blame JPII. As you know, an entire generation of post-Vatican II liturgists were operating under a different translation paradigm of dynamic equivalence, basically allowing a paraphrase of the Latin that simplified and ommitted all sorts of “old fashioned” words like spirit, soul and grace. This generation was entrenched in the Church at many levels. Also, collegiality was the buzzword after the Council, so a lot was left to the bishops, who created the old ICEL and pushed this paradigm. However, JPII slowly but surely shifted the course of the ship of the Church against the entrenched liturgists. The Vatican under JP II repeatedly denied recognitio of the US bishops’ translations in the 1990s, particularly over inclusive language issues. Finally, the Vatican got so fed up with the texts that the bishops were sending them for approval, that the new instruction Liturgiam Authenticam requiring formal equivalence in translation was issued in 2001. The Vatican itself translated the Catechism into English to avoid the same type of problems as it had with the bishops’ translations of the liturgy. Concurrently, a lot of the old guard responsible for the bad post Vatican II translations are fading from the scene (although Bishop Trautman still seems able to wreak havoc as he did at the bishops’ meeting a few days ago). The translation issue relates to broader historical and generational forces at work. JPII and now BXVI are slowing trying to right the mess. Things move slowly in the Church, and that is not always a bad thing. The Post Vatican II liturgists moved much to fast in preparing and imposing the Novus Ordo, in my opinion. Any changes to the liturgy should be done slowly and deliberately. And there is an added benefit that the post Vatican II old guard will grow less powerful over time and therefore will be less in a position to sabotage the implementation of better translations.

[Ransomed]

Yeah, I don’t know if the priest is actually following the spanish in the missal or not, I have only been to bi-lingual english/spanish masses on certain Holy days not the regular spanish mass.

Freegards

[Ransomed]

“If Missals are being printed with English and Spanish, one would hope they were using the proper texts for each language.”

So I take it “proper texts” can can actually be pretty different in different languages, as long as the Vatican OKs it?

Freegards

[Kolokotronis]

The Met. is considered something of a right winger, with reason. I didn’t get the impression that his prayer was political, though and he certainly didn’t suggest that the USA do anything about the Iran situation. I know personally that he believes that the safety of The Church, to the extent there will ever be any, in places like Iran depends on the development of representative governments which respect the rights of minorities. It may be that his hopes for Iran are delusional but I don’t doubt the sincerity of the prayer or its non-political essence.

[SoothingDave]

So I take it “proper texts” can can actually be pretty different in different languages

That's been the case with human language since Babel, no?

Then involve committees.

For instance, how does one translate a theological term like "consubstantial"? Do you leave it in the Latin and educate people what it means? Or do you try to translate it and end up with something impecise yet more readibly understandable?

[SoothingDave]

You mean Bishop Trautperson, don’t you? ;-)

[Ransomed]

Well, I reckon they should ‘probly have the same strategy for every translation, no matter what strategy they pick. That might be closer to “being one” than having different aproaches to translation.

And I’m not sure it’s a translation problem as much as it is just making a change for whatever reason. “And also with you”/”And with your spirit” can be expressed in english and spanish but in my church I take it the english masses are one way and the spanish masses are the other. I think that’s a little strange, but maybe there is a good reason for it.

Freegards

[Tax-chick]

We’ve been regularly attending Spanish liturgy for about 18 months. It’s something of a trial for my husband, who doesn’t understand Spanish, but at least he gets to play the guitar!

Sometimes I don’t see how they got the Spanish version, as it’s very different from the Enlish, but if both are translations from Latin (more or less ...) that would explain it.

[Salvation]

**If Missals are being printed with English and Spanish, one would hope they were using the proper texts for each language**

Unfortunately, that is just coming with the English, per tax-chick’s input! (Very different, aren’t they?)

[Tax-chick]

Yes, many of the texts of the Mass, as well as Scripture readings, are significantly different in the Spanish and English versions. For example, in the opening dialogue of the Eucharistic prayer, the priest’s lines starting with “The Lord be with you,” are same, but the congregation’s responses vary considerably.

English “And also with you,” is Spanish, “And with your spirit.” “We have lifted them up the Lord” is the same. But the last response is “It is right to give him thanks and praise” in English, while in Spanish it’s “Es justo y necessario,” “It is just (correct) and necessary.” This is similar to what we said in the old-days Presbyterian church when I was growing up, “It is meet and right so to do.”

Texts of the Memorial Acclamation are also different.

[SoothingDave]

I’m sure they differ, cause the ICEL texts are awful.

My point was that the texts would be official for that language and not something the US bishops translated from English into Spanish.

[bobjam]

It’s worth noting that from 1549 to 1979, “et cum spiritu tuo” was translated “and with your spirit” in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The version “and also with you” didn’t appear until the 1979 BCP. The Anglican Mission in the Americas has developed a new prayer book which, I believe, restores the original “and with your spirit” response.

[Tax-chick]

the texts would be official for that language

Oh, I see. I'm sure they are. I don't know if there's a single approved Spanish text, though. Maybe there is for the Mass, but not for the Lectionary. The only difference I've noticed among Spanish versions of the Mass text is grammatical: Spain-Spanish has a slightly different verb conjugation from Mexico-Spanish.

I think that's the case with English, too - different countries' Bishops can approve different lectionary translations. No other English-speaking country has the "New American Bible" lectionary, fortunately for them!

[bobjam]

“I couldn’t quite figure out what the translating authority had done by simply leaving the spiritu part out.”

Theory: what if the folks coming up with the English translation were trying to produce a liturgy that did not sound like the 1662 or 1928 Book of Common Prayer (both of which use “and with you spirit”)? Otherwise they’d be accused of pirating Anglican liturgy.

[muawiyah]

Oh, my goodness.

Do you actually think there are members of the priesthood who actually READ Anglican stuff?

[bobjam]

I wouldn’t doubt it at all. Anyone tasked with preparing an English language translation of the liturgy would certainly be interested in how the Anglicans translated it. They would also be interested in how the Lutherans and Orthodox did it as well.

[lightman]

Is the response “And with thy spirit”?

No, since that liturgy was formulated in the years just after the Novus Ordo Roman missal the response was (and remains in the 2007 book) "and also with you."

[kosta50]

It was a misguided attempt to avoid clunky-sounding and stilted English

By changing the whole meaning theologically?! I suppose enduring rationalizations will dull even the dumbest of excuses.

All in one lifetime, which is pretty speedy for the Church

Sitting on a theological nonsense for 40 years...it says a lot about the Church they created, doesn't it?

Sorry this displeases you

Doesn't displease me a bit. My pay is the same. It just surprises me to see something that is theologically a nonsense incorporated into the liturgy by the Church, approved by her highest experts, recited over and over for more than 40 years now, and having that Vinnie "what?" attitude.

Why can't anyone in the Church simply admit that it was a mistake?. Too much pride? And if it wasn't a mistake, why change it now?

Just curious: what about the versus populi? Is that the next mea culpa?

Then, again, the next pope may change everything back to 1970, who knows! Once you tear down tradition, change is the what happens (constantly), just look at the Protestants. :)

[kosta50]

Unam Sanctam, thank you for a serious reply without any attempt to rationalize a bad idea, although you are stopping short of saying the Church made a mistake theologically when it translated "and with your spirit" as "and with you." Let's face it, it was an activist Church, and both JPII and BXVI were participants and a significant part of that (liberal) movement.

Obviously when things went further than ever anticipated and the Church had to deal with such embarrassments as cookies, and Kool Aid "communions," ordinary glass chalices, and clown "masses," and vestal nuns, and skimpily clad or bare breasted women inside the churches, the pope (JPII) began to resist, because he could (all along) and should have done so from the start, had he wanted it. BXVI certainly imposes his vision of what's good for the Church without much trouble, or at least it seems so.

[muawiyah]

Hmmmm ~ given the duration of "mistake" (40 years) it's possible the fellow who made it was in a high position such that he might well become Pope some day.

Guess he didn't quite make it.

Large organizations manage to hide the names of the individuals who do these things, particularly if they're important. If they're not important, they'll print your name on everything they can just to make sure everybody knows who made the "mistake".

Any Cardinals pass on recently?