What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

In the left-wing English The Tablet (June 24, 2006), there is an interesting bit about the “pro multis” issue. Emphasis mine:

“Turning down some proposals, the bishops noted the ‘expressed intention of the Holy See’ to decide in short order on the issue of ‘for many’ as opposed to ‘for all’ in the consecration. Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney and the chairman of Vox Clara – the Vatican body that oversees ICEL’s translations – welcomed the USCCB’s decision.” 

I consider the pro multis issue to be the single most important translation issue.

Back in 2004 when I wrote my weekly columns about the Eucharistic Prayers, I lingered over the consecration of the Precious Blood in four articles. In those articles I exposed the bad philological arguments used to justity the bad translation "for all". To my knowledge no one had ever looked at it from that angle before. My old boss and still great friend, His Eminence Augustine Card. Mayer, one of the holiness men on earth, gave my articles to his close friend and colleague Joseph Card. Ratzinger. Soon thereafter I had a note from his Eminence (now His Holiness) about those articles. Also, I was able to write something up for a certain Prefect of a certain Congregation on this point. I also know some members of the Vox Clara group have read this stuff.

I am told that there is a massive war going on over this issue. Do you remember the debacle in the late Pope’s encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia? That, however, was part of the cause of dismissal of some prelates when the new Pope came onto the scene. But enough said about that.

We have to consider the following.

First, writing as Joseph Ratzinger the Pope himself confronted the pro multis question in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003). He made three important points (pp. 37-8, n. 10): 1) Jesus died to save all and to deny that is not in any way a Christian attitude, 2) God lovingly leaves people free to reject salvation and some do, and 3):

“The fact that in Hebrew the expression ‘many’ would mean the same thing as ‘all’ is not relevant to the question under consideration inasmuch as it is a question of translating, not a Hebrew text here, but a Latin text (from the Roman Liturgy), which is directly related to a Greek text (the New Testament). The institution narratives in the New Testament are by no means simply a translation (still less, a mistaken translation) of Isaiah; rather, they constitute an independent source (emphasis added). 

What Card. Ratzinger did here is cut loose the raft of emotion and conjecture lashed to the pier built by Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias, upon which ICEL justified rendering “for many” as “for all”. Remember that Jeremias (in the ThWNT) and then Fr. Max Zerwick, SJ (in Notitiae in 1970) used Aramaic and Isaiah 53 arguments for their change to “for all.” Whether Jeremias was right or wrong (and I think his argument was at best tenuous) is entirely beside the point now. POINT: We are not Protestants who approach doctrine from a standpoint of sola Scriptura … Scripture alone. POINT: We are not historical-critics when we approach the consecration of the Mass, we are believing Catholics. POINT: The Missale Romanum and the Tradition and teachings of the Church have their own value, a value not to be abandoned in the face of conjecture and the vagaries of historical-critical Scripture scholarship or the concerns of non-Catholics. POINT: The Missale Romanum is in Latin. This is a key point which every reader of WDTPRS must understand.

Second: The Pope is the only one who approves the translations of sacramental forms. We find this in the Holy See’s official instrument of promulgation, Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 28 February 1974 (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99). Here we find a circular letter dated 25 October 1973 over the signature of then Secretary of State Jean Card. Villot, countersigned by Archbp. Annibale Bugnini (my translation from the Latin): “The Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself the power of approving directly all translations into vernacular languages of the formulas of sacraments.”

Sandro Magister has weighed into the concert in the Sistina with Dominco Bartolucci in the presence of the Roman Pontiff.  I commented on this already.

Here is Sandro.  Very interesting:

The person responsible for Bartolucci’s removal in 1997 was the master of pontifical ceremonies, Piero Marini, still in service with Benedict XVI although close to his own dismissal. Marini brought in monsignor Giuseppe Liberto [BLECH!!] as head of the Sistine Chapel, having noticed and appreciated his work as music director during John Paul II’s visits to Sicily.  It was easy to get pope Karol Wojtyla’s permission for the maneuver.

At the time, the only significant figure in the Roman curia who came to Bartolucci’s defense was Ratzinger, for reasons that were both musical and liturgical, as he explained in essays and books.

The concert by maestro Bartolucci in the Sistine Chapel is one of these teaching moments that the pope wants to leave a mark.

Well… getting a shot in the eye usually leaves a mark, doesn’t it?

Among the prelates of the Roman curia present at the concert were Marini and Liberto. But Benedict XVI’s attention was entirely dedicated to maestro Bartolucci – a vigorous 89 years old, – his choir, and the superb quality of their performances.

o{]:¬P

If I didn’t know from my years of working in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio what sort of a gentleman and truly gentle soul His Holiness has, I would cynically wonder if he wasn’t keeping a few folks close to him just to torment them a little. 

I dunno… maybe I’m projecting a little too much.

An esteemed commenter noted in another entry that

aggiornamento and ressourcement must go hand in hand in order to be faithful to both. For without ressourcement, aggiornamento loses its bearings, and with out aggiornamento, ressourcement fails to effectively fulfill any promise of renewal.

This is a good concept, if we stipulate that aggiornamento and ressourcement are terms which apply to slightly different fields of interest. 

Here is an analogy I have used to break through the obtundity of both wacko progressivists and  funnel vision traditionalists.

Consider the case faced by Kate and Humphrey, or "Rose" and "Charile" in The African Queen.  They are stuck on this river after going over a rapid which damages the propeller.  They must fix the prop so that they can go faster than the water current.  If they are not able to go faster than the current, they won’t be able to steer the boat and the current will sweep them to their doom.  Without a working engine and prop, you are doomed to crash on the rocks or, as Charlie must, drag the boat by a rope and get leeches all over you.  And who wants that?

This is perhaps a banal way to describe something as important as the liturgical and theological life of the Church.  Nevertheless, it teaches us an important lesson.  The propeller of the boat is the very last part of the boat.  It is simultenously your connection to the past and it impells you to the future.  With a propeller, you can steer a course.  Without it you are doomed.  You must keep moving to remain alive and come through safely to your desired port.

This is why patristiblogging is so important!

Pope Benedict doesn’t do things with out reasons.

At the concert the other day, which you have all read about by now, the Pope said: "Sacred polyphony, especially the so-called ‘Roman school,’ is a legacy that must be carefully conserved, maintained alive and made known."

Say what you want about the work of Domenico Bartolucci, but he had been appointed "Maestro in perpetuo" of the Sistine Chapel.  He was ousted from this position against his will by some of the "Palace guard".

If nothing else, having Bartolucci back to direct in the Chapel and listening to the Pope say waht he said, must have been a real thumb in the eye to those who got rid of Bartolucci and a real shot in the arm for him.

The Pope’s moves and changes are not "seismic" in nature, with dramatic and earthquake-like shifts of officials and dicasteries.  He is opting for slower means, such as erosion.  Suddenly a sink hole opens up here or there and someone drops through. 

This technique gives everyone a chance to reflect on what he has been doing, where he presently is, and whta he would really like to be doing next year if he doesn’t get with the program Benedict is signalling.  We have seen some very highly placed prelates shift their approach to their mandates since Joseph Ratzinger became Pope, haven’t we!

The Bartolucci Chronicles will continue.