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

We continue our Patristic Rosary Project today with the:

2nd Glorious Mystery: The Ascension

Everything about the life of the Lord is a blessing for us.  After His resurrection the Lord blessed the Apostles with His presence, gloriously risen.  When His earthly work with them was completed, He very explicitly blessed them.  "Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven." (Luke 24:50-51).  Even the Lord’s departure from us was a blessing and it occurred in the midst of Christ’s explicit blessing of His apostles.  Venerable Bede (+735) speaks of the Lord’s blessing:

Our Redeemer appeared in the flesh to take away sins, remove what humans deserved because of the first curse, and grant believers an inheritance of everlasting blessing.  He rightly concluded all that He did in the world with words of blessing.  He showed that He was the very one of whom it was said, "For indeed He who gave the law will give a blessing."  (Ps 83:8 Vulgate)  It is appropriate that He led those who He blessed out to Bethany, which is interpreted "house of obedience".  Contempt and pride deserved a curse, but obedience deserved a blessing.  The Lord Himself was made obedient to His Father even unto death, so that He might restore the lost grace of blessing to the world.  He gives the blessing of heavenly life only to those who strive in the holy Church to comply with the divine commands. [Homilies on the Gospels 11.15]

Remember that for Bede, like most of the Fathers, the details have spiritual meanings.  Even the place to which the Lord led the Apostles meant something:

We must not pass over the fact that Bethany is on the slope of the Mount of Olives.  Just as Bethany represents a Church obedient to the commands of the Lord, so the Mount of Olives quite fittingly represents the very Person of our Lord.  Appearing in the flesh, he excels all the saints, who are simply human beings, by the loftiness of His dignity and the grace of His spiritual power.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444) speaks of the blessing the Lord confers:

Having blessed them and gone ahead a little, he was carried up into heaven so that He might share the Father’s throne even with the flesh that was united to Him.  The Word made this new pathway for us when He appeared in human form.  After this, and in due time, He will come again in the glory of His Father with the angels and will take us up to be with Him.  Let is glorify Him.

We may not at all times remember that even at this very instant our human nature is, in the divine Person of Our Lord, seated at the right hand of the Father.  We are therefore in a state of "already but not yet": humanity is enthroned in heaven sharing something of God’s glory, and yet we are still here, awaiting the final realization of all Christ accomplished.  St. Leo the Great (+461) pries this open:

Dearly beloved, through all this time between the resurrection of the Lord and His ascension, the providence of God thought of this, taught this and penetrated their eyes and hearts.  He wanted them to recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as truly risen, who was truly born, truly suffered  and truly died.  The manifest truth strengthened the blessed apostles and all the disciples who were frightened by His death on the Cross and were doubtful of His resurrection.  The result was the were not only afflicted with sadness but also filled with "great joy" when the Lord went into the heights of heaven.  It was certainly a great and indescribable source of joy when, in the sight of the heavenly multitudes, the nature of our human race ascended over the dignity of all heavenly creatures.  It passed the angelic orders and was raised beyond the heights of archangels.  In its ascension, our human race did not stop at any other height until this same nature was received at the seat of the eternal Father.  Our human nature, united with the divinity of the Son, was on the throne of His glory.  The ascension of Christ is not elevation.  Hope for the body is also invited where the glory of the Head preceded us.  Let us exalt, dearly beloved, with worthy joy and be glad with a holy thanksgiving.  Today we not only are established as possessors of paradise, but we have even penetrated the heights of the heavens in Christ.  The indescribable grace of Christ, which we lost through the ill will of the devil, prepared us more fully for that glory.  Incorporated within Himself, the Son of God placed those whom the violent enemy threw down from the happiness of our first dwelling at the right hand of the Father.  The Son of God lives and reigns with God the Father almighty and with the Holy Spirit forever and ever.  Amen.  [s. 73.3-4]

Before His ascension, the Lord laid a great commission on the apostles.  Here is St. Jerome (+420):

"Jesus approached them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.’"  This authority was given to one who had just been crucified, buried in a tomb, laid dead, and afterwards had arisen.  Authority was given to Him in both heaven and earth so that He who once reigned in heaven might also reign on earth through the faith of His believers.  "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’"  First they teach all nations; then they baptize those they have taught with water for the body is not able to receive the sacrament of baptism before the soul has received the truth of the faith.  They were baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit so that the three who are one in divinity might also be one in giving themselves.  The name of the Trinity is the name of the one God.  "’Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.’" What a marvelous sequence this is.  He commanded the apostles first to teach all nations and then to baptize them in the sacrament of faith and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them to observe all that He had commanded.  Lest we think these commandments of little consequence or few in number, he added, "all that I have commanded you," so that those who were to believe and be baptized in the Trinity would observe everything they had been taught. [Commentary on Matthew 4.28.18-19]

This is a heavy charge, but the Lord consoles them as well.  St. John Chrysostom (+407) makes this point:

After that, because he had enjoined on them great things, to raise their courage He reassures them that He will be with then always, "even to the end of the world."  Now do you see the relation of His glory to His previous condescension?  His own proper power is again restored.  What He had said previously was spoken during the time of His humiliation.  He promised to be not only with these disciples but also with all who would subsequently believe after them.  Jesus speaks to all believers as if to one body.  Do not speak to me, He says, of the difficulties you will face, for "I am with you," as the one who makes all things easy.  Remember that this is also said repeatedly to the prophets in the Old Testament.  Recall Jeremiah objecting that He is too young and Moses and Ezekiel shrinking from the prophet’s office.  "I am with you" is spoken to all these people.  [The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 90.2]

In 2004 I wrote several articles in The Wanderer about the "pro multis" controversy.  I have posted them for your convenience.

1. The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 8: “Simili modo”
2. The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 10: “Simili modo” part 2
3. The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 10: “Simili modo” part 3
   
4. The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 12: “Simili modo” part 4

 

What Does the Prayer Really Say? The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 8: "Simili modo"

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

PART 1 of a 4 part article on the words of consecration of the Precious Blood, focusing on the pro multis issue.

We arrive at the second stage of the two-fold consecration. The priest consecrates the chalice containing wine with the drops of water. Massive controversies of momentous spiritual and theological import revolve around translation of this prayer. WDTPRS cannot possibly deal with all of issues. But explore and make conclusions and choices we must. Ad ramos!

"Simili modo"
LATIN TEXT (2002MR):
Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, item tibi gratias agens benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, [mysterium fidei] qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

We will not spend too much time with a comprehensive overview of vocabulary. However, as we attempt to look through the Apostle’s "dark glass" (1 Cor 13:12) at the mystery that follows our lantern to dispel the darkness of ignorance, the Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us that testamentum (from testor) is "the publication of a last will or testament; a will, testament". It is therefore an instrument that bears witness to the intent of one regarding the other concerning inheritance, participation by others in his goods after his death. It is used here for the concept of "covenant". A covenant in Biblical terms was a sort of contract and establishing of a special relationship between parties. The covenants between God and His chosen People were not by any means between equal parties. God initiated them, on His terms, to which He was and is absolutely faithful. This is the new covenant (testamentum ‚ Gr. diatheke), replacing and by far outstripping the old by which God draws heaven and earth into a new and deeper binding relationship forever. It is eternal (aeternum) and it is signed, sealed, and guaranteed before witnesses with the Blood of the God made man in an indestructible bond with our humanity. It is a matter of pure undeserved gift from Him to us to make a covenant with us. Effundo (ex fundo) signifies "pour out, pour forth" in a lavish or extensive way.

The ancient Roman form of the prayer had merely the terse Hic est sanguis meus to which was added the word calix from the Lucan and Pauline accounts. The idea of covenant from Matthew and Mark was blended in together with other elements.

The words mysterium fidei were pronounced in the midst of the formula since at least the 7th c., but were removed for the Novus Ordo. They refer to the chalice specifically and seem merely to point out very explicitly what has been said before. Some suggest that once the deacon would exclaim these words so that the people could know what was going on behind the curtains which were drawn before the altar. History shrouds exactly how they got inserted. However, to be sure, the word mysterium is of profound importance. We cannot linger over this, however, for we are constrained by space and must stick to the Novus Ordo.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

We are trying to be precise and accurate, true to what the Latin says and also, God helping, to the Church’s understanding of what this text of Holy Mass is intended to accomplish. This means that we must now justify the choice‚ – how odd that sounds! – to translate pro multis as "for many" rather than what ICEL and other modern language version have, "for all". First, let it be said that pro multis in Latin means "for many". All the Latin rites, historical or modern, have pro multis and not pro omnibus or pro universis. Those who choose "for all" have theological reasons for their choice. We must examine this issue and the arguments on both sides with great care and respect. We cannot simply reject "for all" out of hand. We must understand the reasons for that choice. Before moving on we will have to deal with the pro multis question at length, which will involve some nitpicking and patience.

What has the liturgy of the Mass actually had in the past?  We get “pro vobis et pro multis … for you and for many” in the formula of consecration from a blending of the accounts in Mark 14:24 (translated from Greek: “this is my blood of the covenant (diatheke) shed for many (tò peri pollôn)”) and Matthew 26:28 also says “for many” together with Luke 22:20 (translated from Greek: “Likewise also the cup, after the supper, saying ‘This cup is the new covenant (diatheke) in my Blood which will be poured out for you.’”   The choice to do this had theological significance.  Our patristic sources, such as the writings of the 4th c Doctor of the Church St. Ambrose of Milan when describing the words of consecration in the Eucharistic liturgy, have pro multis and not pro omnibus, etc.  The liturgical formulas were from Scripture.  The 4th c. Doctor of the Church St. Jerome, who translated from Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin giving us a Bible translation called the Vulgata, chose to use pro multis when translating the Greek tò peri pollôn (genitive plural of polus) in describing Jesus’ words at the Last Supper.   In Greek polus means “many” or “much” or even “most” as in the majority: it does not mean “all”.  In the ancient Church, no one said “for all” instead of “for many”.  In the Greek Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus uses a form polus “many”.   The liturgical rites of the East retained a form of polus.  The rites of the Latin West have ever used pro multis. 

Theological challenge, especially heresy, forces us to reevaluate our doctrines and their formulations. Theological revolt and heresy constrains Catholics to go deeper, and the disputes bear great fruits in the long run. During the 16th c. the Church was compelled to battle the Protestant heresies concerning the Eucharist, grace, and justification, the nature of man, etc. The long process of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) deepened our understanding of the faith and gave clear expression to what we believe. We find the Church’s teaching enunciated succinctly by the Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), the practical guide for pastors of souls. This Catechism says about the pro multis topic:

But the words which are added for you and for many (pro vobis et pro multis), were taken some of them from Matthew (26: 28) and some from Luke (22: 20) which however Holy Church, instructed by the Spirit of God, joined together. They serve to make clear the fruit and the benefit of the Passion. For if we examine its value (virtutem), it will have to be admitted that Blood was poured out by the Savior for the salvation of all (pro omnium salute sanguinem a Salvatore effusum esse); but if we ponder the fruit which men (homines) will obtain from it, we easily understand that its benefit comes not to all, but only to many (non ad omnes, sed ad multos tantum eam utilitatem pervenisse). Therefore when He said pro vobis, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen (delectos) from the people of the Jews such as the disciples were, Judas excepted, with whom He was then speaking. But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the gentiles. Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect (delectis). And this is what the words of the Apostle aim at: Christ was offered up once in order to remove the sins of many (ad multorum exhaurienda peccata – Heb 9:28); and what according to John the Lord says: I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you gave to Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9). Many other mysteries (plurima mysteria) lie hidden in the words of this consecration, which pastors, God helping, will easily come to comprehend for themselves by constant meditation upon divine things and by diligent study. (My translation and emphasis. Part II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14) from the Catechismus Romanus seu Catechsimus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos ….  Editio critica.  Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989, p. 250. Cf. The Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Trans. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1934, pp. 227-28.)

Naturally those working towards a new English translation must cope with all of this. And God help them! I hear that at this point they are leaning (again) toward "for all". Rumor aside, what is the status quaestionis ... the "state of the question"? What current evidence can we find for what is happening around this thorny problem?

It seems years ago, but in WDTPRS for the Post communionem for the 4th Sunday of Easter (8 May 2003), I already addressed at length the problematic translation, and indeed Latin text, of the Holy Father’s latest Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (EdE).  When the Pope referred to the words of institution, he used “for all” rather than “for many.”   I went through all the Scripture and showed also that, probably in their haste, the people in charge of the release of the letter made mistakes in the Biblical citations (“Mt 14:24” should have been either Matthew 26:28 or Mark 14:24). Even the Latin version of the Encyclical, at the time of its first release said: “qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum” which changed the words of Scripture and thus the Mass formula.  Mind you, the citation was clearly a paraphrase of the account and not a direct quote: it was cited with a confer (“cf.” or “cfr”) reference, so they have an out.  However, that was in fact, in black on white, the text at the time of the public release of Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

But wait, there’s more. 

The certified text of any papal document is always promulgated in the official monthly publication of the Holy See called Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS).  Very often, after big documents come out with a great bang and splash, some months later the real text is issued, and it is different – and no one knows it because no one reads the Latin anymore.  When you look now at the official AAS text of the EdE 2 wherein the Pope supposedly changed pro multis to pro omnibus we find that a correction has been made (cf. AAS 95 – 7 July 2003  – p. 434). Someone, God bless him, put the smack down on pro omnibus in EdE 2.   A Polish colleague of mine verifies that on the Vatican’s website, the Polish version says “za wielu…for many” in the controverted spot.  Draw your conclusions as you will, someone, if not the Pope himself, had the clout to get this changed.   That is the status quaestionis.

The Church’s teaching is clear.  This is our Catholic faith: Christ died for all but not all will be saved.   Many will be saved.  Many can be a huge number, a multitude so vast it defies human imagining but not God’s ability to number.  Lacking even one, not all are saved.   What does this mean?  Why did ICEL chose “for all” in the translation we have been using?     How is WDTPRS going to translate pro multis?  Come back next week to find out!

What Does the Prayer Really Say? The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 10: “Simili modo” part 2

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

PART 2 of a 4 part article on the words of consecration of the Precious Blood, focusing on the pro multis issue.

“Many other mysteries (plurima mysteria) lie hidden in the words of this consecration, which pastors, God helping, will easily come to comprehend for themselves by constant meditation upon divine things and by diligent study.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, 4)

WDTPRS left things hanging last week. We looked at the tradition behind the words pro multis and then asked: “Why did ICEL chose “for all” if the Greek of Scripture and the Latin of the Mass clearly say “for many” and if the Council of Trent insisted on the distinction between the two concepts? Oh! for the help of God in what follows! For if this is “easy” then it is so only in light of Paul’s observation that in this earthly life we see “as if through a mirrored glass, in puzzling obscurity” (per speculum in aenigmate… Vulgate 1 Cor 3:12). But ICEL gave us “for all” and bishops approved it and the Holy See ratified it. Seasoned Catholics will remember what happened then.

The change from “for many” to “for all” in the English translation after the Council did not go unnoticed. It stirred some to outrage and accusations of heresy. They said that the change makes the English formula of consecration heretical and invalid. Their point is this: Christ died for the salvation of all, but not all will be saved – some will be saved, even if it is many or most, but not all (cf. Council of Trent). The doctrine that all will be saved is a heresy condemned in the early centuries of the Church (cf. the Greek phrase apokastasis pantôn and the anti-Origenist controversy). So, to say “for all” means that, in the Mass, the Church says that Jesus at this moment in the institution of the Eucharist was saying that all would be saved. That would mean, impossibly, that Jesus said something false. Thus, “for all”, since it is heresy, invalidates the consecration. Furthermore, they maintain that the mistranslation was adopted in order to introduce into the Mass a heresy of Lutherans that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross saves all who have faith (regardless of their moral lives, actual doctrines and beliefs, their formal membership in the Catholic Church, etc.).

How did it come to this? We go back to the time when the Novus Ordo was released in 1969. The official publication of the then Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship’s Notitiae (6 (1970) 39-40, 138-40) already had a two-pronged explanation of the translation choice “for all” which must have been decided ahead of time. First there was a response from the SCDW (pp. 39-40) and then a couple months later a “study” by Fr. Max Zerwick, SJ, a heavy-hitting Bible scholar at the Rome’s Biblicum, the Biblical Institute (pp. 138-40). First, a fast response is given in Latin to a question of whether in the vernacular versions corresponding to “for all men” we are to understand that the doctrine about this issue found in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent had been “undone” (doctrina… superata – I quoted that Catechism last week). The answer was that: “In no way is it to be understood that the doctrine of the Roman Catechism is undone: the distinction about the death of Christ being sufficient for all and efficacious only for many retains its force.” Also in Latin: “In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing which is less than correct has slithered in (nihil minus rectum irrepsit), which urgently requires correction or emendation.” (My translation – NB: “minus rectum… less than correct” isn’t “less than clear” – it might be ambiguous, open to different interpretations.)

Then comes the “study” in Latin by Zerwick explaining that according to exegetes (biblical scholars) pro multis means pro omnibus because of the Hebrew and Aramaic behind the biblical texts which were in Greek. Zerwick says first that despite the response given by the SCDW a few months before, there was still a lot of unrest! He then gives examples in Latin from Old Testament, Qumran papyri and New Testament texts where “many” can be taken to mean “all” (omitting a few important ones that don’t, by the way). Zerwick then says that because Jesus was using Isaiah 53 we must conclude that what Jesus said meant “pro omnibus” (remember this argument and Isaiah 53). So, Zerwick asks: If the phrase “pro multis” in Latin is correct and can mean “for all” or “for many”- “Why therefore in our liturgical translation must this venerable original “pro multis” give way to the phrase “pro omnibus”?” He responds:

On account of its accidental but still real incongruity: the phrase “pro multis” – as was said – shuts out from our mind (when not advised beforehand) the redeeming work’s universality which could have been connoted in that phrase for the Semitic mind and which it certainly did mean on account of the theological context…. But if on the other hand the phrase “pro omnibus” is said also to have its own incongruity, namely that it can suggest to some that all are going to be saved in actuality (in actu), the danger of such an erroneous understanding seems scarcely to be thought to exist among Catholics.

Here is what Zerwick is saying. First, scholars of Aramaic say that Jesus really meant “for all”. Second, our formula pro multis doesn’t exclude the concept “all” but it causes us to think that “all” are not included in Jesus’ saving work. Third, even if the formula “for all” admittedly sounds like all will in fact be saved, certainly no Catholic thinks that way. Therefore, we can and should use the phrase “for all” because it sounds better.

I must make an observation. Zerwick says that because Catholics know what the Church teaches and do not believe that all are saved even through Jesus died for all, we can safely use the “for all”: Catholics will hear it in the right way, not the wrong way. Go to a funeral in a Catholic church today. Listen to how priests preach and people talk. You hear virtually, only, the concept that all are in fact saved. When people die, they go to heaven automatically. This is a perfect example of the rule lex orandi lex credendi … how we pray has a reciprocal relationship with what we believe. If you believe something, you will pray in a certain way even while by praying in a certain way you will come to believe what you pray. Catholics have been made to pray a certain way for decades and, over time, we have come to believe what we hear: all are saved because that is what the phrase “for all” in the consecration sounds like. Zerwick was right in one respect: if Catholics were well instructed and their knowledge of doctrine secure, “for all” could work. Zerwick was fatally wrong in another respect: he couldn’t imagine in 1970 what things would look like in thirty years … or could he? Either way, catechism is the key.

NB: In his weekly The Word From Rome (13 Feb. 2004) item on the internet the ubiquitous fair-minded Rome correspondent for the left-ish National Catholic Reporter, Mr. John L. Allen, Jr., reports on the progress of the new English text in preparation. Allen cites these same Notitiae paragraphs, both the responses and Zerwick, as being footnoted in a draft of the new translation! Mr. Allen provided a somewhat faulty translation, though not critically so (thus, I redid it). Again, see the importance of being able to read the Latin texts and know what is really being said!

Going on, as Notitiae indicated in 1970, ICEL founds its choice of “for all” on the work of Biblical scholars. I apologize to the WDTPRS readers for all this and what follows. You may be all at sea with this, but it is critical to know the level of scholarship this battle over the next translation is now being fought. WDTPRS must linger over this. I do not recall having read anything online or in a book or article that goes into this issue to this extent. Also, we are dealing with icons, nay rather, the idols of the biblical and liturgical elite. They are the sibyls whose oracular pronouncements were taken by ICEL and all others thereafter upon bended knee. Who were the scholars Notitiae and ICEL are talking about when they made their defense of “for all”?

For an answer we turn the clock back before the Second Vatican Council to some extremely important scholarship done by the eminent Lutheran theologian and philologist Joachim Jeremias (b. Dresden 1900 d. Tübingen 1982). Theology owes an enormous debt to Jeremias for his work on the “historical Jesus”, what Jesus actually did and said. Jeremias is one of the exegetes, biblical scholars, before whose résumé liturgical and biblical gurus kneel and swing incense, and with good reason. Virtually everything said about the parables of Jesus today is based on his work. Challenges to the claims of such as Jeremias by those as puny as the undersigned are received by said gurus with patient chuckles followed later in the day with a sneer over the tinkle of ice in highball glasses as the anecdote is recounted. That said, Jeremias’ approach has some flaws. Often, Jeremias simply isolates texts out of their context and dissects them without regard for how they fit (or don’t fit) with others. Also, as Heinrich Schlier observed, Jeremias tries seemingly to separate what came from Jesus’ Himself, out and away from the interpretation of the same. Jeremias thus makes the “historical Jesus” into a kind of “fifth gospel” and the criterion of the four Gospels. Jeremias’ work was the keystone for ICEL’s reason-defying translation, upheld by mandarins of the SCDW (heavily influenced then by German historical-critics, the liturgical views of Annibale Bugnini et al., and the ecumenical efforts of those like Karl Rahner, SJ), of pro multis as “for all”. Remember: people simply assume that Jeremias, the “archetypal historical critic”, was right in all things. When Zerwick and the SCDW addressed this issue in the official publication Notitiae, and spoke about exegetes and scholars of Aramaic, they meant specifically Joachim Jeremias and his work on the Greek word <" alt="" border="0" />—[if gte mso 9]> < ![endif]--> polloí­ – “many”.

Prof. Jeremias prepared the article for the Greek word “<" alt="" border="0" />—[if gte mso 9]>