Congar and Van Unnik on Dominus vobiscum—et cum spiritu tuo

Most of us on this blog know the name of Yves Congar but few of us know his debt to Willem Cornelis van Unnik in Congar’s analysis of the work of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy.

Here are the two important passages in Congar in support of the contention that this dialogue is a prayer between the ordained and the baptized/confirmed (see the previous thread). I have inserted “[NOTE]” at the places where Congar cites Van Unnik’s “Dominus Vobiscum: the Background of a Liturgical Formula,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Mansen 1893–1958, edited by A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 270–305). UPDATED: I have uploaded a scan of my marked copy of the article.

***

I do not wish to speak here about the third ‘sacrament of initiation’, the Eucharist, but would like to observe that the Greek word teleiosis, ‘perfection’, would be more suitable in this context than the Latin word initiare, ‘to begin’. I shall deal with the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist and the changing of the holy gifts into the body and blood of Christ as well as our communion in the Lord’s body and blood in Volume III of this whole work. Those final chapters are, I believe, extremely important. We have already seen above how a spiritual space or framework for celebration is created by the Spirit by means of an exchange of a promise and a bearing witness to his presence: ‘The Lord be with you’ —’ And with your spirit’. [NOTE] This is a sign of the reciprocity that constitutes the full truth of the relationships between the Christian community and the minister who is the president and the pastor of that community.

This mutual relationship, which expresses the constant aspect of the activity of the Spirit, can also be found in the process of the ordination of ministers. It may even be because of this that it takes place in the celebration. There was also a theological meaning in the early tradition and practice of the Church that we need to recover. The most important moment in the process of ordination was the liturgical act, but, in the early Church, the process in fact began before the celebration. The community took part in an election which, like all the acts that regulated the life of the Church, had to be ‘inspired’. In this election, the talents or charisms of the one elected were recognized. The consecrating bishop took up this intervention on the part of the community. In the consecration of another bishop, all the bishops present were ministers of the Spirit within the epiclesis of the entire assembly. . . .

Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit: VOLUME I: The Experience of the Spirit (New York: Crossroads, 1983), 106–107.

***

. . . The Eastern tradition teaches as firmly as the Western Church that only the priest can do this, but this does not mean that he can do it alone, that is, when he remains alone. He does not, in other words, consecrate the elements by virtue of a power that is inherent in him and which he has, in this sense, within his control. It is rather by virtue of the grace for which he asks God and which is operative, and even ensured, through him in the Church.

It is worth recalling at this point the meaning of the exchange of words between the one who presides over the celebration and the assembled people: ‘The Lord be with you’ – ‘And with your Spirit’. This does not mean simply ‘and with you’. It means ‘with the grace that you received through ordination for the common good; we are asking now for that grace to be made present in this celebration.’ [NOTE] The ‘power’ received at ordination and the making present of the gift of the Spirit, the ordained celebrant and the community or the ecclesiaa are united in the celebration of the Eucharist. In the Eastern rite, the epiclesis is spoken in the plural, indicating clearly that the whole community invokes the Spirit. The Roman canon, however, also has ‘Memores offerimus’ and ‘Supplices te rogamus’ in the plural. We are not so very far apart.

Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit: VOLUME III: The River of Life Flows East and West (New York: Crossroads, 1983), 236.

Paul Ford

Paul F. Ford, Ph.D., has been professor of theology and liturgy at St. John Seminary, Camarillo, CA, since February of 1988. He is the author of <em>By Flowing Waters: Chant for the Liturgy</em> (The Liturgical Press, 1999) and the convener of the five-member Collegeville Composers Group, authors of <em>Psallite: Sacred Song for Liturgy and Life</em> (The Liturgical Press, 2005–2010).

Please leave a reply.

Comments

44 responses to “Congar and Van Unnik on Dominus vobiscum—et cum spiritu tuo”

  1. Jack Rakosky

    Thanks Paul. I love Congar and his trilogy. Even dared to put one of them on my master’s comprehensives.

    This mutual relationship, which expresses the constant aspect of the activity of the Spirit, can also be found in the process of the ordination of ministers.

    If we are going to use the ordination rite as a way of rethinking the dialogs in the Mass as a reaffirmation of a relationship, it would be well to look beyond the rite of election exemplified in the cry of “worthy.”

    Do we really want “and with your spirit” to mean that we reaffirm the clergy’s talents, or even the fact that someone else thought they were talented. If that were the case, many people might choose to be silent, perhaps suggesting with Thomas More that silence could be construed as consent.

    A major part of many ordination rites was a period of silent prayer for the person about to be ordained and presumably his responsibilities. Certainly this is something that could be implied by the “and with your spirit.” and something that most people would be willing to affirm.

    A major theme of almost all the prayers said by the ordaining bishop was prayer for holiness, integrity and purity of heart. Certainly that is something that we could intend by “and with your spirit, ” especially since it touches upon the universal call to holiness which we share in common.

    I suspect that one of the reasons many people prefer the “and with you” is that most people can relate to priests as fellow Christians in need of help and support.

    Beyond that I view priests and bishops mainly as managers, people who control what happens in the parish and diocese. Like most other managers in the world, such as businessmen and politicians, I generally give them low marks. Not many “worthy’s” out there in the management world. I am a strong fan of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Jack, being administrators who must make difficult decisions is not normally the characteristic of someone who feels called to the priesthood. Many (not all) want to be pastoral, compassionate, give people the benefit of the doubt and multiple chances and it is very hard to “fire” someone as the priest probably ministers to them in a pastoral way and knows their family also. I think it is best to hire lay people to be administrators of parishes and chanceries, but who also know the difference between running Walmart and the Church. But with that said, business practices that are ethical and call people to accountability, evaluation and yes the possibility of being released from particular positions are necessary. I’ve had to do it; I despise it. I’ve had an administrator now for about 20 years and that person does most of the dirty work for me and makes sure we are running smoothly.
      But in terms of priestly identity, in the 1970’s there was clearly a loss of priestly identity in terms of “sacral” dimension of the priest’s ministry, that of prayer, contemplation and worship. What was emphasized, which prior to the Council was not an emphasis evidently, was the priest’s work in the world and many saw priests becoming activists, social workers and politicians because of a denigrated view of the priest being a leader of a pastoral community where he also leads the worship and is a man of prayer and contemplation. I’m sure many will remember the “priest worker” movement where priests got secular jobs to identify with the laity and ran for public office to effect social change. Ministering in parishes was low on their agenda. At the same time, the laity were taking positions in the Church both paid and volunteer that made them more clerical. In fact in terms of clericalism, the laity can be just as so if not more once they ascend to these positions and identify them as positions of power/empowerment rather than service; of setting one’s own agenda rather than serving the agenda of the Church. Have you ever met a lay person on a parish staff more clerical and rigid than any priest or sister? It happens with “rigid” progressives as well as traditionalists. A recovery of priestly identity configured to the Sacraments of Initiation (not just Baptism) but Baptism and also Confirmation and Holy Eucharist, not to mention Penance, has been occurring and the priest is being identified more and more not as an administrator, social worker or politician (the laity are the ones who should be bringing Catholic ethics and principles to this domain) but rather as Priests in the cultic, rabbinic and diaconal sense, in the sacramental sense of Holy Orders.

      Reply
      1. Jack Rakosky

        Father Allan, and MJO:

        Sorry to confuse you by using “manager” in the highly technical sense of a leader who possesses authority, i.e. the ability to control the situation by saying what may or may not happen.

        Fr. Ruff and the contributors to this blog are its managers. They exercise strong leadership (i.e. influence) by what they post. They have the positional authority to do so. However many of us who comment regularly also exercise leadership (influence) although the only thing that we have much control over is what we say in our comments. If we are to hold somebody accountable for this blog, it would be the managers although I hope some of the rest of us help to make this blog what it is.

        People (e.g. the Vibrant Parish Life Study) think the parish church building, and its religious education for children programs are very important (in the top ten things) and also well done. They think the liturgy, and the parish as community are the most important but half way done the list of things that are well done.

        Everyone contributes to making the parish what it is, but the managers (pastor and pastoral staff) have the positional authority to say that some things will or will not happen. Just as they deserve credit for the parish building, and the school, so also they have to take responsibility for mediocre liturgies and a mediocre sense of community.

        The dialogues in the liturgy and in the community between pastor and people are necessarily unequal, although both pastor and people are necessary and interdependent. You cannot have authority without accountability. Nor can you have accountability without authority. We all exercise leadership (i.e. influence) sometimes simply by our example, but we are not accountable for what others do unless we have the positional authority to say what they may or may not do.

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Thanks for the clarification Jack! Agreed. No matter how much I delegate to our administrator, ultimately I am responsible, no actually my bishop is! Nothing like shifting the blame! But as far as blogs, commenters can also be called on the carpet or their remarks deleted outright by those nasty higher ups! Monarchy? 🙂

      3. Brigid Rauch

        I would be happier if we had more priests who were activists and social workers. Here in the States, we have too many priests and bishops who are cracker jack investors, church designers, architects, real estate barons, etc. Then there are the franchise operators; closing active, financially sound parishes because they don’t like the demographics of the area!

    2. Jack Rakosky

      Paul,

      Thanks very much for posting the scan of the Van Unnik article. It has a great biblical background and poses the real question: why does the Roman Rite have The Lord be with you when the Byzantine has Peace to you.

      Unfortunately, it does not answer that question; just provides us with a ton of materials for making sense of what we have.

      As a social scientist the answer is pretty clear, the Roman practice comes from Ruth 2:4. What it has in common with Ruth 2:4 is that the salutation “The Lord be with you” comes from the leader of a community, which is true even when it has been used by women religious.

      If we accept Bowes notion that household leaders were impresarios of their own household rituals, then it is very plausible that Christian or Jewish household leaders in the first and second century in direct imitation of Boas might use the salutation at household events, e.g at a banquet before they made a speech or introduced an event like a reading, etc. The response they received could easily be that of Ruth 2:4 The Lord bless you.

      It is very plausible that literate householders could have a copy of this extremely small book, and that it would make good and brief reading at a dinner party.

      Since in some cases the leaders of these gatherings might have been the Domina, that might have provided extra motivation since the Book of Ruth is about the family leadership of women.

      If one makes these assumptions then it is easily to see how in the world of house churches the practice could have become reinterpreted in terms of Pauline texts and the Angel’s announcement to Mary, and how especially in terms of Paul “and with your spirit” could have replaced “The Lord Bless you”

      What is apparent to me is that worlds of interpretation have been placed on top of a rather simply explained practice.

      Finally the Roman Rite has the Byzantine Rite “Peace be with you” for a bishop. How did that come about? That has to be explained.

      Reply
  2. M. Jackson Osborn

    If, JR, priests were ‘mainly…managers’, as you view them, there would be no cause at all to hold them in unusually high esteem and call them ‘reverend’ and ‘father’. It seems to me, though, that a priest is properly understood to be a ‘holy man’ whose life is dedicated wholly to the service of God, who is set aside and given ‘holy orders’ because of his sacerdotal calling and purpose. There is, granted, some conflict between this view and the egalitarian convictions prevalent in our modern Western societies. This is mirrored in my own attitudes: while I abhor many of the results and privileges attendant on a self-conscious clericalism, I cannot but justify the priest as anything other than one set aside to offer sacrifice and minister to the spiritual needs of his flock; his role as your ‘manager’ is entirely accidental and irrelevant – it may even be an encumbrance to his real purpose: it is not what priesthood is about. This is but one of the great dividing principles between Protestantism and Catholicism. It seems to me that this understanding of priesthood is central to the ‘Dominus vobiscum’ dialogue under discussion here.
    (I do not presume that my remarks here inform you and others of anything you did not know – but it seems very strange to hear a Catholic liken a priest mostly to a business manager. But then, I was all but scandalised recently when, in a conversation with a priest charged with priestly formation at our seminary, he said: ‘the days of the praying priest are over… we are training administrators’. Thank you, I see no purpose in trusting my spiritual life to an administrator or ‘manager’. Something has gone terribly wrong.)

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      MJO,

      The prayers for ordination in all the traditions certainly call the priest to a life of holiness.

      However, priests are not the only holy people in the church. There is a long history of looking to martyrs, ascetics, etc. as holy people and models of holiness.

      Almost all the many people whom I have experienced as holy, and who have been models of holiness for me have been lay people.

      My extensive interest in theology has never been fostered by any priest in my life. It originated with a lay mathematics professor in public high school and was further modeled by a lay English professor in a Catholic college. All this before Vatican II by the way.

      My praying of the Divine Office has never been fostered by any priest in my life.

      Really other than providing Mass on Sunday, priests have been of little use to me. Yes, I have been to many high quality Masses (largely because I sought them out), and I am thankful for the priests (and musicians and others) who have provided them. But I have been to many more mediocre Liturgies, and I hold the pastors and their staff responsible for them.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        Thanks, JR. I certainly have shared in your experiences of holiness in all walks of life, and share with you also (I think) that very many priests fall short of their calling. I have even known Protestant clergy who exhibited more holiness, especially compassion, than most Catholic priests. One is reminded of the many great priests and religious in the Church’s history who with great reluctance were made bishops and abbots; reluctance because the power and authority were a burden on their preferred life of prayer, ministry, and sacrifice. We denigrate priesthood, and ultimately cheat ourselves and God, when we make managers and administrators of priests. A priest should be as much like a holy monk in his people’s midst as possible – and his liturgy should be that of a high Benedictine.

  3. Mark Miller

    Well, I have to listen to Congar, especially in the way he presents it.

    The Spirit- this means it is the Spirit who is doing the mass, consecrating the gifts, speaking to the gathered. (Praying in us!) If this can be kept firmly in mind and if the ceremonies and tenor of the mass can be fatihful to this, then the priest will never be just a set apart man with the sacred power. He will always be , along with all the baptised there, humbly asking God to act, to save, to heal.

    Dare I say that the Roman rite has not – at all times – made this a evident as it should be? Some would say so. And thus, friends, SC!
    Eastern ordination prayer: “O God who strengthens the weak and fills up what is lacking. . . ” Exactly this is the Spirit we are acknowledging.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      it is the Spirit who is doing the mass, consecrating the gifts, speaking to the gathered.

      That’s very similar to Chrysostom’s explanation:

      “By this cry, you are reminded that he who stands at the altar does nothing, and that the gifts that repose there are not the merits of a man; but that the grace of the Holy Spirit is present and, descending on all, accomplishes this mysterious sacrifice. We indeed see a man, but it is God who acts through him. Nothing human takes place at this holy altar.”

      I want to be sure I read your latter remark clearly: the priest is not “just a set apart man…”, he is also a baptized member of the Church, “humbly asking God…”. You’re saying he is both, right? I agree, if that is the case, and I think Sac. Conc. (and some other documents of V2) work toward that principle.

      For example, that the priest and the people pray the Penitential Act and the Domine, non sum dignus (among other things) together goes a long way toward uniting priest and people in the same act of supplication in the same way… while not denying the priest the role in the liturgy which is properly and only his.

      Reply
  4. Halbert Weidner

    Gosh. I am really out of it. I could not understand a thing in the original post or the comments about how a few words like “and with your spirit” can take the tonnage loaded on by all this. And on second thought, I do not believe even with dear Congar settling in on one aspect of the issue that it is really such a heavy duty matter compressed into what was the equivalent of mutual greetings. Think what we could weave out of “goodbye”. We could deconstruct “God,” “be,” “with,” “ye” until the cows come home.

    Reply
  5. Bill deHaas

    So, Paul Ford, some ruminations:
    – okay, understand Congar’s research into the “spirit” and connection/development of epiclesis and even connection to presider’s ordination
    – wonder if the liturgical discussions and development of Vatican II would have modified his thoughts in this area?
    – Vatican II rebalanced the priesthood self-concept between “cultic person” and “servant person”. This was a significant issue in my training and when you add in the growing expansion of a pastor’s responsibilities; the role of priests in mission or rural or even changing demographic urban areas – is the priest or presider more a servant or cultic leader just doing sacraments/eucharist?
    – As I posted earlier, the current church faces huge challenges with community leaders who are not ordained – and what kind of role do they have in leading community worship? Will there be a two tiered liturgical system with one structure for non-ordained prayer leaders and one structure for ordained? Is this what Vatican II discussed when they re-aligned focus starting with baptism of all rather than focusing narrowly on ordained ministry?

    Just some idle thoughts.

    Reply
  6. William Schmidt

    It is tragic that we need to work so hard to make meaningful sense our of “and with your spirit.’ That is not way honest translations are done. The decision was made to translate “et cum spiritu tuo” as “and with your spirit” and after that decision was made then we scramble to try to justify the translation. There is so much theologizing. Chrysostom et alii are no more correct than Josef Jungmann in his Mass of the Roman Rite. Jungmann arrives at a different conclusion.

    Reply
  7. Paul F Ford

    William, I’m not scrambling to try to justify anything. “And also with you” delivers the theology of Congar more clearly than “And with your spirit.” But it’s important to pick one’s battles and this is not one I am picking.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      “And also with you” delivers the theology of Congar more clearly than “And with your spirit.”

      Did you mean to have them the other way around?

      “‘The Lord be with you’ – ‘And with your Spirit’. This does not mean simply ‘and with you’. It means ‘with the grace that you received…'”

      Reply
      1. Paul F Ford

        Dear Jeffrey, I KNOW that, I TEACH that; but I am saying “And also with you” delivers the theology we both uphold more clearly than “And with your spirit.”

  8. William Schmidt

    I am so tired of trying to make intelligent sense out of something that is so trite. The truth is that the translators, and they were not scholars, had as their goal to make the English translation sound like the Latin. This is such a cheap way of translating. Their primary goal was not a correct translation but make it sound like Latin. The new translation is the one that must be corrected.

    Reply
  9. Jordan DeJonge

    By far, I would prefer “with your spirit” and even “thy”. For me, it brings out something of Buber’s

    “Spirit is not in the I, but between I and Thou”

    But must we settle on a theological reason for this? It’s simply given to us in the tradition of the Church. Must we beat everything to death? It’s the role of the theologians and teachers to explain and articulate the meaning of this received tradition for the colloquially minded- not to embark on some massive overhaul until it bears the stamp and likeness of a single generation. Too much of the latter has occurred since VII.

    Whereas in one time “with thy spirit” may have drawn more attention to the distinct role of the priest, let us today fill it with the knowledge of Christ’s presence in the Spirit through the dialectical action of his Body. There is no need to alter texts, obscure in and of themselves, to do this.

    Reply
    1. Mary Burke

      Buber’s translation opeted for thou in order to preserve and transfer the differentiation between Du and Sie from German into English. English no longer differentiates, ye and thou having become obsolete. (Although in rural Ireland, ye is still used frequently.)

      Reply
  10. M. Jackson Osborn

    One really does have to go out of one’s way to arrive at anything other than ‘and with your spirit’ for ‘et cum spiritu tuo’. It would seem, then, that the issue is not what the Latin plainly means (and most likely theologically implies), but how can we avoid saying that because we don’t like what it says and most likely implies. The protest over this is much too loud to be a mere concern over how to put into English what it does, in fact, say and mean. Rather, it would seem that those who protest really do have an interest in avoiding what it clearly says and means.

    Reply
    1. Mary Burke

      It’s an idiom. M.J.O. In translating from one language to another it is a mistake, and mostly a nonsense, to translate idioms literally. Certainly when I was in school I would have failed English to Latin and Latin to English translation if I had done that.

      Reply
      1. M. Jackson Osborn

        MB – is it indeed a mere idiom??? To translate ‘a votre sainte’ as ‘how do you do’ may be an idiomatic equivalent, but still it does not convey the sense or compassion of the French. One of the responsibilities of the translator is to convey the colour, the tenor, the imagery and the ethos of the language she is translating. One might even offer the suggestion that idiomatic translations fall inevitably short of being, to use a rather tired term, ‘equivalent’. And, yes, we all are aware of the nonsense of literal words for words – just as equivalencies present their own brand of nonsense; further, ‘and wth your spirit’ is hardly nonsense.

  11. Jordan Zarembo

    Jordan DeJonge on November 18, 2011 – 10:24 pm

    It’s the role of the theologians and teachers to explain and articulate the meaning of this received tradition for the colloquially minded- not to embark on some massive overhaul until it bears the stamp and likeness of a single generation.

    The reformed liturgies are designed precisely to conform to the sentiments of each new cohort of persons who encounter a “living liturgy”. Preachers and theologians merely facilitate evolution and ensure that liturgy is sufficiently didactic. Instruction on the theology of the Mass during Mass is not important or even desirable since the liturgy must be able to deconstruct itself to a level understood “by the people” (as if “people” were a homogenous category!) The idea of postmodern self-deconstructing liturgy is diametrically opposed to a pre-modern philosophical understanding of liturgy as an accumulative cultural, historical, and theological phenomenon.

    M. Jackson Osborn on November 18, 2011 – 11:31 pm

    The protest over this is much too loud to be a mere concern over how to put into English what it does, in fact, say and mean. Rather, it would seem that those who protest really do have an interest in avoiding what it clearly says and means.

    I would not call the current debate over the translation of et cum spiritu tuo a matter of avoidance on the part of a number who support the older translation. A return to a literal translation of the phrase questions the prized “relevant” quality that the reformed Mass is supposed to embody. A reversion back to a pre-modern understanding of the Mass as a accumulative heritage of Christian prayer throws the postmodern liturgical project into a existential crisis.

    Reply
    1. M. Jackson Osborn

      JZ – I am not competent to argue philosophical niceties, but, from my meagre understanding of post-modernism, I would judge it to be a system not at all compatible with the Christian Faith. Fundamental to post-modernism (if I understand it correctly) is the proposition that there is no objective reality, no universal Truth, that all is subjective and culture bound. If this is anywhere near an accurate-though-brief assessment, how does this thought remotely apply to the Christian witness and covenant as manifested in liturgy or any other aspect of our Faith. And ‘relevance’? What a tired left-over from the 60s and 70s fad for making the trendy and passing values of the time the measure of Truth! The same people who bandied this preposterous epithet around were the same ones who tried to tell us that God was dead.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      M. Jackson Osborn @ 2011-11-20 03:16:00

      J Delong [sic] – I’m half wondering if your response to my comment is tongue-in-cheek. Assuming, though, that it isn’t, you present some problematic approaches. First, I remember well your word, ‘relevant’. It was one of the tiresome buzz words of the 60s and 70s. ‘Irrelevant’ was applied with great indiscrimination to just about any and all doctrine, churchmanship, spirituallity – the whole fabric of religion’s (especially Christianity’s) sphere. Relevance was, one might say, the sword of the God-is-dead movement, whose minions were confident that God was dead, and, ere long, his Church would be, too. Well, God and his Church are quite alive, no thanks to ‘relevance’, which was not mentioned by the Council, but which you imply was a prime category which ‘…the reformed Mass is supposed to embody’.

      Lastly, you speak of throwing the ‘postmodern liturgical project into a [sic] existential crisis’. Do you have some basis or evidence for this assertion that the Church is in a postmodern project? Are you purporting to derive this from the Council? I am not a philosopher (I am an organist-choirmaster-composer-teacher) so I am on unsure ground discussing postmodernism amongst those who are better able than I to treat this matter. As I understand it, though, a fundament of postmodernism is that there is no objective reality or truth, that all is subjective and that nothing can be known with certitude.

      This, of course runs smashingly counter to the Christian Religion, which is founded upon and in covenant with Objective Reality. So: I should say that those who believe that the Church has embarked upon a postmodern project which is thrown into an existential crisis are simply in the dark as to the mission that the Church is really embarked on, or are bent on distracting if not blemishing Her with some very subjective and passing philosophical and heterodox speculations of quite dubious provenance and veracity.

      Reply
  12. Philip Sandstrom

    I think on this question and the implications for the meaning of the ‘ministerial priesthood’ it is good to look at and ruminate on I Corinthians 4:1: “Think of us this way: as servants of Christ, and stewards of God’s mysteries”. Here Paul is referring to the ‘whole Christ’ Jesus, the Lord himself, and his “mystical/real Body” the Church. This verse does sum up the work of the ministerial priest (and bishop and deacon) — and has been used in that way in recent times in documents on the priesthood by Popes John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI (probably Paul VI too, but I am not sure of that). This does provide the sort of context Yves Congar is pointing to when he discusses “and with your spirit”. [The last thing this verse and response are within the Mass liturgy (and in the other Sacraments and Sacramentals) is a mere ‘greeting’ — to have a ‘greeting’ requiring that response 5 times in the space of a Mass does not make any sense at all. It is clearly something more important than a mere ‘greeting’.]

    Reply
  13. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    If one is trying to put forward a good case for the response “and also with you” why in the world are they doing it only for English? Shouldn’t the goal be to get it into the Latin template? As far as I can tell, “and also with you” translated into Latin is “necnon vobis” not “et cum spiritu tuo.” Would a Latin scholar please explain the difference between those two responses in Latin and why “et cum spiritu tuo” is the ancient usage in the Liturgy rather than “necnon vobis?”

    Reply
  14. Philip Sandstrom

    One other note: Nuns in Solemn Vows who are also Consecrated Virgins are entitled and do use “The Lord be with you” etc at the proper places in the Divine Office: at the orations, for the Gospel at the office of Readings, and to give the blessings in ‘clerical form’. Whether this extends to Consecrated Virgins who are not also Nuns, I do not know. This is the last ”vestigial remains” of the Order of Deaconesses in the Roman rite. Abbesses and the ‘hebdomidarius’ Nun in at least some of these Abbeys do according to their ‘ancient customs’ wear either a maniple or a stole while presiding – another ‘vestige’.

    Reply
    1. Mary Burke

      Sure that should be hebdomidaria!

      Then none have I offended.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Rita Ferrone @ 2011-11-19 10:56:00

      Phil, that’s amazing! Thanks for this fascinating detail.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Philip Sandstrom @ 2011-11-19 14:24:00

        Hello Rita, This small detail does put into a somewhat different context the whole discussion of ”the presider asking a blessing of the assembly in order to ‘do their proper job’ for them.” It has to do with the person chosen out from the assembly with “Church agreed qualifications”– even temporarily– to ‘do the specific job’ for the liturgical assembly. There used to be a ‘coffee table size book’ of photos of Carthusian and Cistercian and Benedictine Nuns wearing in the stole or maniple on their ’solemn vow day’ in the library at Dunwoodie Seminary in Yonkers. I have no idea whether it still might be there. There are also ‘bird watcher’s guide’ type books from the 17th and 18th century with ‘the religious habits’ of all the communities then extant (this includes Carthusian and Cistercian Nuns wearing their usual habit with also a stole or maniple. If I remember correctly there is at least one example of the Nun wearing a surplice or rochet under the stole or maniple. I think she was identified as an Augustinian Canoness — perhaps not the sort in Chaucer.) The Bollandist library here in Brussels has a couple of them. Some of the habits of both the men and the women look so full of ‘fantasy’ shapes and colors that it would make the Fellini of “Fellini Roma” envious. [I would not be surprised if such books were not in the Yale Library — or available by ‘inter-library loan’ or on the Internet even.]

    3. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Fr. Allan J. McDonald @ 2011-11-20 04:19:00

      In my previous assignment we had a sister parish relationship with Saints Peter and Paul in Tbilsi, Republic of Georgia. When I visited there, that diocese only had an Apostolic Administrator who was not a bishop. However and much to my surprise he wore the insignia of the bishop when he celebrated Mass, using the mitre and staff. I understand also that former Anglican/Episcopal bishops who are married but became priests, while they cannot be ordained bishops because they are married, can still head Anglican ordinariates as a sort of Apostolic Administrator and wear the insignia of a bishop as I describe above. Perhaps allowing abbesses in ancient practice and due to their authority in their abbey and its surrounding area was the reason for it and certainly in ancient times when the Church and state were melded together and queens exercised a great deal of authority in the Church by virtue of the blending of Church and state, no one thought it odd that an abbess would wear a sign of authority as “shepherd” of her community? Of course this is all conjecture on my part.

      Reply
  15. Jordan DeJonge

    Jordan Zarembo: “The idea of postmodern self-deconstructing liturgy is diametrically opposed to a pre-modern philosophical understanding of liturgy as an accumulative cultural, historical, and theological phenomenon.”

    This is one reason why I worship at an Anglo-Catholic parish more than a Roman one these days. At the former, I actually feel like I am encountering a substantial spiritual and cultural tradition , and I feel connected to the roots that have produced so much of what I love about the society about me.

    Reply
  16. Jack Rakosky

    At this morning’s Divine Liturgy at the local Orthodox Church, I noticed at the Gospel and elsewhere that the Priest does not say the “Lord be with you” but rather

    Priest “Peace be to all” which is a translation of Irini pasi to which the response is
    People“And to your spirit” which is a translation of Ke to pnevmati sou.

    Priest: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” at the Preface
    People: And with your spirit” which is a translation of Ke meta tou pnevmatos sou.

    According to the rubrics, the priest gives the greeting of peace before the Epistle and the Gospel even when a reader or deacon is going to do the reading. On the other hand the exchange before the preface (above) and before the Lord’s Prayer are both extensive and have the meta (with) as part of the response.

    Any explanations as to why the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom does not use “The Lord be with you” why it does use Peace to all (without meta/with) and why the response to the longer greetings contain a meta (with)?

    Reply
  17. Jeffrey Pinyan

    Fr. Allan J. McDonald @ 2011-11-19 15:01:00

    If I recall correctly the Benedictine Mother Abbess in the 1965 Sound of Music movie wears a “bishop’s glove” gives an actual blessing and is holding a staff in the Vespers scene. I presume the producers of this movie did their homework in depicting this scene the way they did and I don’t think any pre-Vatican II Catholics were scandalized by what they saw.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Philip Sandstrom @ 2011-11-19 15:14:00

      In the Sound of Music it is question of an Austrian Benedictine Abbey — which is old enough to have ’such ancient customs’ and even a ‘mitered Abbess’ (at least on her coat of arms). It would be interesting to contact the Nuns at Regina Laudis in Connecticut about these ‘customs’ since they are the daughter of a very old French (from Merovingian times) now Benedictine Abbey, Jouarre, and do have an elected Abbess.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Fr. Allan J. McDonald @ 2011-11-19 16:41:00

      When I saw the movie as a child for first time, I thought that scene was particularly cool. As a child I thought nuns did the same things as priests in their convent prayers (even said Mass!) Of course convents at that time and for children were mysterious places. This movie kind of perpetuated that belief in me at the time.

      Reply
  18. Jeffrey Pinyan

    Jordan Zarembo @ 2011-11-19 22:54:00

    Philip: Nuns in Solemn Vows who are also Consecrated Virgins are entitled and do use “The Lord be with you” etc at the proper places in the Divine Office: at the orations, for the Gospel at the office of Readings, and to give the blessings in ‘clerical form’.

    I agree with Rita — this is quite fascinating. In fact, it is more than fascinating because blessings by solemnly professed nuns also brings into question the very nature of major orders. If religious sisters at one time were (or still are) permitted to offer the greeting and give blessings during the Office, then what is the ontological difference between the presbyterate and an perpetually professed nun (particularly an abbess)? Are perpetually professed nuns invested by the Holy Spirit with a change in being similar to clergy in major orders?

    Philip, You also contend that This small detail does put into a somewhat different context the whole discussion of ”the presider asking a blessing of the assembly in order to ‘do their proper job’ for them.

    While I disagree that a presider is dependent on the assembly or congregation for the exercise of sacerdotal or episcopal right (both rights by ordination and not lay assent), I am unsure under what authority religious sisters could exercise certain prerogatives of the ordained. Are consecrated women called forth to exercise certain aspects of Holy Orders because of the need of the community, or because of an intrinsic change in the self?

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      Philip Sandstrom @ 2011-11-20 02:46:00

      I mentioned that this has to do with those nuns who are also consecrated virgins — and that these actions are granted in the pontifical where these virgins are consecrated, along with the requirement to pray the Divine Office in common. If one traces ‘backwards’ through history and the documentation these are the vestiges of the ‘order of deaconesses’ (the virgins and widows) in the Roman Rite. Beyond that I just note this interesting ‘remainder’and reminder of ‘more ancient customs’ in the Church. It continues because of the ‘needs of the community’ living and celebrating the Divine Office within their cloister — as to ‘ontological changes’ , before that question came up theologically, this was, and still is the custom at least in some abbeys with nuns who are also consecrated virgins. The order of deaconesses certainly did exist in fact (and still does in theory in the Western Church) and does explicitly in some of the Eastern Churches (the mother of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh was one) — and these ‘vestiges’ do point to something of that history in the Roman Rite. These women do these things because of their consecration as virgins and their solemn vows as nuns. They are acting ‘in accord with the ancient customs’. Beyond that I do not know what to add.

      Reply
  19. Philip Sandstrom

    The ”disappeared” has ‘re-appeared’ Alleluia! Will wonders ever cease? By the way, thanks for the ‘re-susitation’!

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Jeffrey, your finding these really freaks me out! 🙂

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        I corrected your typos, Fr. Allan. 🙂

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Tanks!

Posted

in

, ,

by

Paul Ford

Tags:

, ,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading