New ICEL draft of the Roman Canon

Here is the draft of the Roman Canon, the 1st Eucharistic Prayer:

I will emphasize texts of special interest.

To you, [The Roman Canon begins with "Te", "You", often decorated as a Crucifixion.  The idea is that the first word focuses on God, not on us, as the present version does.]
 … most merciful Father,
we therefore humbly pray
through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord.
We ask you to accept and bless + these gifts,
these offerings,
these holy and undefiled sacrifices,
which we offer you first of all
for your holy Catholic Church.
Be pleased to grant her peace,
to guard, unite and govern her
throughout the whole world,
together with your servant N. our Pope
and N. our Bishop,
and all Bishops who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.
Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N.
and all gathered here,
whose faith and devotion are known to you.
For them we offer you this sacrifice of praise
and they offer it to you for themselves
and all who are theirs,
for the redemption of their souls,
in hope of health and security,
and fulfilling their vows to you,
the eternal God, living and true.

In communion with the whole Church,
they venerate above all others the memory
of the glorious ever-virgin Mary,
Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ,
† then of blessed Joseph, husband of the Virgin,
your blessed Apostles and Martyrs,
Peter and Paul, Andrew,
James, John,
Thomas, James, Philip,
Bartholomew, Matthew,
Simon and Jude:
Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus,
Cornelius, Cyprian,
Laurence, Chrysogonus,
John and Paul,
Cosmas and Damian
and all your Saints:
grant through their merits and prayers
that in all things we may be defended
by the help of your protection.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
[I cut out the proper Communicantes.]

Therefore, Lord, we pray:
graciously accept this offering from us, your servants,
and from your whole family:
order our days in your peace,
and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation
and counted among the flock of those you have chosen.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
[I cut out the proper Hanc igitur]

We pray, O God:
be pleased to bless, recognize,
and approve
this offering in every way:
make it spiritual and acceptable,
that it become for us
the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who, on the day before he was to suffer
took bread into his holy and venerable hands:
with eyes raised to heaven
to you, O God, his almighty Father,
giving you thanks he said the blessing,
broke the bread
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.
In the same way, when supper was ended,
he took this precious chalice
into his holy and venerable hands,
and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the Cup of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal Covenant;
it will be poured out for you and for all  [WHAT???? This will surely be corrected!]
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.

The mystery of faith.

We proclaim your death, O Lord,
and profess your resurrection
until you come in glory.
or —
When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your death, O Lord,
until you come again.
or —
Saviour of the world, save us,
for by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.

Therefore, O Lord,
as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed passion,
the resurrection from the dead,
and the glorious ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord,
we, your servants and your holy people,
offer to your glorious majesty
from your own generous gifts,
the pure victim,
the holy victim,
the spotless victim,

the holy Bread of eternal life
and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
Be pleased to look upon them,
with a serene and kindly gaze,
and to accept them
as you were pleased to accept
the gifts of your just servant Abel,
the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith,
and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek,
a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God,
bid that these gifts be borne
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,
that all of us who receive
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son
through this sharing at the altar
may be filled with every grace and blessing from
above.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N.
who have gone before us with the sign of faith
and rest in the sleep of peace.
Grant them, O Lord, we pray,
and all who sleep in Christ,
a place of refreshment, light and peace.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

To us sinners also,
your servants who hope in your abundant mercies,
graciously grant some share
in the communion of your holy Apostles and Martyrs:
with John the Baptist, Stephen,
Matthias, Barnabas,
Ignatius, Alexander,
Marcellinus, Peter,
Felicity, Perpetua,
Agatha, Lucy,
Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia,
and all your saints,
into whose company we beg you admit us,
not weighing our merits but granting us pardon,
through Christ our Lord.
Through whom
you constantly create all these good things, O Lord,
you make them holy and fill them with life,
you bless them and bestow them on us.

Through him, and with him, and in him,
to you, O God, almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
is all honour and glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

Okay… I can say that!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA, WDTPRS. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to New ICEL draft of the Roman Canon

  1. Concerning the pro multis Valle Adurni posts as follows:
    I gather, by the way, that ‘pro multis’ is yet to be added to this version, and that it will be probably rendered ‘for many’ rather than ‘for the many’ or ‘for the multitude’.

  2. Tim Ferguson says:

    Does the option of abbreviating the number of saints invoked exist in the editio typica?

  3. Tim: Yes, that option is in the 2002MR.

  4. Gregory Jensen says:

    Dear Father,

    It is always a joy it is to read your words, but especially this post on the Roman Canon. I am very happy that my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters will have access to such a worthy prayer. At least as important though is that these new and more accurate translations will do a great deal to reconcile the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. If we can recognize each others prayers as something we would offer how can reconciliation be far off?

    Your unworthy brother in Christ,

    Fr Gregory
    (Greek Orthodox)

  5. Stephen M. Collins says:

    I love the changes. I also am very happy that the original Memorial Acclamation is included. I wonder, though, if the one we are used to shouldn’t be retained as maybe a fourth option.
    1) It did get the point across.
    2) It is based on the very traditional but not often used “Christus vincit”.
    3) There are literally hundreds of musical settings for it.
    I have stated on other blogs: if every single part of the Mass the congregation says/sings must be changed, then it becomes a public works project for contemporary composers while putting otherwise good music permanently on the shelves of history. All we need is a rubric that allows for “any authorized translation” to be used WHEN SUNG. This would not only keep some of the music the people are used to now, but would make available all that we had during the 1960s transitional period AND all of the Rite I and II music that have become a part of the Roman Church through the Anglican Use.

  6. Ryan says:

    I was always told that there was a problem with translating “Sponsam” with regards to St. Joseph as “husband.”
    Isn’t the Holy Spirit properly the “husband” of the Blessed Virgin?

    In fact, isn’t this why Msgr. Schuler always replaces (replaced? I no longer live in St. Paul) that line in the Canon with “Joseph, her spouse”?

    I hope that gets worked on.

  7. danphunter1 says:

    Father,
    Thank you for this information on the Roman Canon to be used at the Ordo Missae Mass.
    My question is:Is this just going to be an option amongst other EP’S?Will the other EP’S still be available for use?Are certain Eucharistic Prayers mandated to be used on certain days,or can the Roman Canon be used always?
    Do you think if that if they are all allowed for use anytime that most priests will decide not to use the Roma Canon,or will they have no choice.Thank you
    God bless Msgr.Schuler

  8. I would say “husband” would be more appropriate a translation than “spouse” for the reasons Ryan mentions.

    Amazing to see an I.C.E.L. translation that is not “bleeding” with Fr. Z.’s comments. This is a great thing!

    Question: Will a much more faithful translation take momentum away from the revival of Latin?
    Will people (and especially priests who have the final decision) say, “meh. This is good enough now.” and lose interest?

    Just throwing out the question, which I do think might be more on topic than not.

  9. Adam van der Meer says:

    Ryan: Isn’t the Holy Spirit properly the “husband” of the Blessed Virgin?

    This idea was popularized by St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, and many people talk about the Holy Spirit as the “spouse” of the Blessed Virgin Mary — but it is not really part of the tradition. I don’t believe that the Church has ever taught that the Holy Spirit was the “spouse” of the BVM. Perhaps the idea has a certain value in terms of inciting piety, although I’m not sure that people really think about what it might mean — it just sounds nice.

    There are some popular prayers that include this idea of the Holy Spirit being the BVM’s spouse, such as: “Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, thy well-beloved spouse” — however, besides a grammatical ambiguity with that prayer (it sounds like the Heart is the spouse, not the person), I doubt the Church has ever approved it for popular use. It has just sort of caught on. I think it came through one of the alleged apparitions (Conyers?). Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    St. Joseph was the husband/spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They were really married and all of the goods of marriage were present in some form in their relationship, even if they did not consummate the marriage physically. Marital consent is what brings about the bond of marriage, not consummation. Therefore we can say that St. Joseph was really the Blessed Virgin’s husband.

    Maybe we can speak of the BVM as having a sort of “mystical marriage” with the Holy Spirit or with the Blessed Trinity; but in any case we need to be careful with this and avoid denying or downplaying her real marriage to Good St. Joseph.

  10. ThomasMore1535 says:

    I think it’s also important to note that the first letter in the English Roman Canon will be a “T,” in other words, the cross. This makes it identical to the Latin original–”T” is also the first letter in the Latin original. Numerous saints have commented on the mystical meaning and symbolism of this, that the Roman Canon starts with the “cross.”

    How many other languages can brag about having the first letter of the Roman Canon beginning with a “T”?

  11. Jordan Potter says:

    Ryan, St. Joseph and the Holy Spirit are both “spouses” or “husbands” of the Blessed Virgin, but in different ways.

    As for the fourth option of the Memorial Acclamation (the one that is almost the only one ever used), I don’t like it because it’s an English intrusion into the Latin original. Yes, I know it’s approved (for now), but if it’s approved then why don’t they just go ahead and add it in the Latin?

    I’m very glad, though, that the words “Mysterium fidei” are correctly translated. “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” is not only a false alteration of the text, but it is an introduction of something self-conscious and showy, something alien to the spirit of authentic liturgy. When the priest proclaims that the Chalice is the Mystery of Faith, there should be a natural response from the faithful. We shouldn’t be so blatantly prompted and invited. Even more important, in this place the focus is and should be entirely on the Blessed Sacrament and what it is and means and does. There should under no circumstances be a shifting of our eyes from Jesus back to “us.” The Mystery of Faith is NOT the time for us to stop and think, “Oh yeah, look at us and our proclaiming. Wheee!”

    The added words “Let us proclaim” introduce a break, a rupture, in the natural (or supernatural, rather) flow of the liturgy. It almost makes it feel like, for some odd reason, we’re pausing in the middle of the Anaphora to do something unrelated, before the priest resumes his prayer.

  12. Jordan Potter says:

    Just wanted to add, on the question of St. Joseph’s marriage to the Blessed Virgin, that the word “spouse” in reference to a man means “husband,” so we’re talking about a distinction without a difference. St. Joseph was the Virgin’s true husband, but God is the true spouse of every human soul, and in a special way of the soul of the Immaculate Virgin. Admitting the real marriage of St. Joseph to the Blessed Virgin does not contradict the higher, mystical marriage of God with St. Mary’s soul.

  13. richard says:

    Why is “calicem” translated as “chalice” and “calix” as “cup”?

  14. catholiclady says:

    Re: Pro Multis – the following letter from November 2006 probably explains why the “delay” in this change.

    [To their Eminences / Excellencies, Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences]

    Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

    Prot. N. 467/05/L

    Rome, 17 October 2006

    Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

    In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

    The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

    1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation “for all”, “per tutti”, or equivalents.

    2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

    3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

    a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

    b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

    c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

    d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

    e. The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.

    f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

    The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

    With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

    Devotedly Yours in Christ,

    Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

    Published at Catholic World News. H/T Amy Wellborn.

  15. VirMagnus says:

    While not a great latin schollar, I have some reservations about the
    “and all Bishops who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.”

    Here, if I were translating this from the english to latin, i would either use a relative clause with a participle, or an ablative absolute. This implies that the bishops are in fact holding the truth, and continuing to hand on the catholic and apostolic faith. But what then does this imply about bishops who do not hold onto the truth of the church?

    Now I’m no donatist, but I do think that the english implies a certain orthodoxy that the latin doesn’t. The latin says, “et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.” ok, dative case, and to all orthodox and (possibly ‘and even’ or ‘and also’) to [those] cultivating (its a dative present active participle) the catholic and apostolic faith.

    Ok, do we now have a passage that may imply the great responsibility of the bishops to cultivate the ORTHODOX catholic faith, i.e. that which is established in Rome? What I am getting at is that if the current translation is accepted, the requirements placed on the bishop to keep orthdox seem less obvious than they could be. Also, there seems to be another plug for the communion of saints as we are ALL responsible for handing on the catholic faith, not JUST the bishop.

    Is this a mountain out of a molehill?

  16. prof. Basto says:

    I only have a problem with the translation “…and all the Bishops who…”
    in the Te Igitur. The original Latin: “et omnibus orthodoxis, atque
    catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus” is not restrictive to the Bishops,
    but to all those who are cultors (preservers, keepers) of the Catholic and
    Apostolic Faith.

  17. RK says:

    I believe that they will change the “for all” as soon as they figure out how to render it definitively.

  18. Henry Edwards says:

    The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

    I know that this is just Romanita on good Cardinal Arinze’s part, but sure not more than 2 or 3 minutes of catechesis (if that) would be required for every priest in the U.S. to say “for many” instead of “for all” tomorrow.

    On the other hand, can one imagine what damage a liturgist or RE director can do in 2 or 3 years of catechesis?

  19. I agree that Rome probably grant the American request to keep the first acclamation after the mysterium fidei even though it has no Latin original,but it should be the only exception. I don’t see the connection of “Christ has died ,Christ is risen ,Christ will come again” with Chritus Vincit.Its an entirely different set of words.

  20. prof. Basto says:

    The fact that this translation has “for all” instead of “for many”
    can be easily explained by the fact that it was voted on and approved
    by the USCCB BEFORE Cardinal Arinze´s letter on the correct translation of
    “pro multis”.

    So, this will have to be corrected in the future, and there are
    three possibilities: (a) the USCCB revises its approved text and votes to amend
    it so that “pro multis” be correctly rendered; (b) the USCCB sends the present
    text to Rome and the Holy See refuses to grant its approval (recognitio),
    ordering the US Bishops to correct their translation of “pro multis”; (c) the
    USCCB sends the present text to Rome and the Holy See, instead of sending it back
    to the US bishops for correction, decides to amend it on its own in the moment of
    granting the recognitio.

  21. Henry Edwards says:

    Is this just going to be an option amongst other EP’S? Will the other EP’S still be available for use?

    EP’s II, II, IV are there also, with similarly “updated” translations.

    Are certain Eucharistic Prayers mandated to be used on certain days, or can the Roman Canon be used always?

    Surely the Roman Canon can be used always. Though I’ve heard it alleged from time to time — without ever finding it stated definitively — that because EP’s II and IV have their own prefaces, they are not supposed to be used on days that have proper prefaces, which I believe includes all Sundays as well as all feasts and solemnities.

    For instance, in my geographic parish, not a particularly conservative one, we hear only the Roman Canon at Sunday or daily Mass during the octaves of Christmas and Easter, because “that’s the way it’s supposed to be”. So I heard the RC on Monday through Friday this week, and it’s been several months since I last heard EP II on a Sunday (in another parish).

    I wonder whether priests who use quickie EP II every day (including Sundays!) are ignoring “what’s supposed to be”, or is the whole thing so infested with optionitis that there’s really no “supposed to be”. (This is not just a rhetorical question. I’d be grateful to anyone who can point to definitive answers to this question and the ones posed implicitly in the preceding paragraphs.)

  22. RBrown says:

    Although the new translations are an improvement, I wonder how much difference it will make. My experience is that priests often make their own changes to the text.

    The priest this morning: This is the Lamb of God. Fortunate are those who are called . . . Fortunate? The grace of God? Lucky me.

    The priest yesterday morning: He broke the bread and gave it to his friends . . . So the institution of the Eucharist was a friendly get-together?

    And neither of these two priests are liberals. But many priests were in formation that encouraged liturgical spontaneity.

  23. To Adam van der Meer: The prayer “Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, your well-beloved Spouse,” was given to Fr. Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests and can be found in the book “To the Priests, Our Lady’s Beloved Sons,” message #226k, 426a, 521b, and 604w. Reading these messages from Our Lady will give you a greater insight about Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit!

  24. Adam van der Meer says:

    Deacon John: Reading these messages from Our Lady will give you a greater insight about Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit!

    With all due respect, I would rather read the many fine Marian encyclicals and other sure teachings of the Church, and the writings of respected ecclesial theologians, than messages of alleged apparitions, which contain no theological weight whatsoever. Many interesting (and heretical) sayings have been attributed to our Blessed Mother in alleged apparitions.

    I restate what I said earlier: this idea of Mary as “spouse” of the Holy Spirit is not in the tradition, other than in the piety of St. Louis de Montfort. Someone please tell me if I am wrong, and provide something more substantial than apparition messages to prove it! Thank you!

    While perhaps the notion of the Holy Spirit as “spouse” of Mary is tenable on a certain level, nevertheless it would need to be demonstrated as coming from the deposit of faith and not from someone’s piety (even a great saint’s!) or from an alleged private revelation before it should be promoted on the level of popular piety. Fr. Gobbi’s writings, like all alleged private revelations, may be read for personal enrichment, but like all apparitions that have not been approved by the Church, they must be read with extreme caution. Here I would say that perhaps more caution is needed. The fact that they have become popular and widely promoted, and even a source of renewal for some priests, does not make them authentic.

    I find this particular prayer (which I only used as an example earlier on) to be problematic, since it seems to be based on a notion not taught by Holy Mother Church. If simple prayer from the heart fails, there are many other fine, formal prayers that an individual could say to Our Lady and to the Holy Spirit other than this one.

  25. kelly says:

    I had the opportunity to attend an Anglican Use rite parish in San Antonio Texas and enjoyed the translation of the Roman Canon very much. One thing among many that stood out was the priest saying “the holy victim, the pure victim, the IMMACULATE victim.” I like it much better than “spotless.” I don’t know if ‘spotless’ is more accurate but ‘ immaculate’ seems more worthy of the Mass.

  26. Papabile says:

    Are the “Through Christ our Lord. Amen.” still bracketed []???? Or have they restored the internals of the prayer?

  27. Antonio says:

    Is there anything a layman can do about the Spanish translation of the Missal used here in Argentina?
    By the way, I’m ENORMOUSLY happy about this happening in the English-speaking world.
    PLEASE, you all, continue this “good fight”.

  28. dcs says:

    Just to show that you can’t please everyone: I noticed that “calix” is still translated “cup.” :-(

    But overall it seems to be a far better translation than the current one. It actually resembles a translation rather than an interpretation.

  29. James says:

    I have very high hopes for the new ICEL translation. My only issue at the moment is that pesky pro multis being translated for all. It’s really very exciting otherwise.

  30. Henry Edwards says:

    My only issue at the moment is that pesky pro multis being translated for all. It’s really very exciting otherwise.

    My impression is that this so-called “latest” translation is actually a fairly old one, predating the Pope’s pro multis decision and Cardinal Arinze’s letter. There are several pending USCCB-recommended changes that might worry one a bit, but I doubt there’s any reason for concern about “for all”.

  31. “…it will be probably rendered ‘for many’ rather than ‘for the many’ or ‘for the multitude’.”

    I just know I’m gonna get jumped all over for this, but here goes…

    From what I read this past week from someone directly involved in preparing the translation, there is an impasse over whether it will appear as “for many” or “for the many.” The former is a literal translation of the Latin; the latter is literal enough, and also acknowledges the context, that the “many” to which Christ referred (taking the original language into account, and no, it wasn’t Latin), was infinite — in other words, a “many” without end.

    To render it as “for all” goes against the main criterion of fidelity to the Latin text. For that reason alone, it will change, but no final choice has been made.

  32. RBrown says:

    From what I read this past week from someone directly involved in preparing the translation, there is an impasse over whether it will appear as “for many” or “for the many.” The former is a literal translation of the Latin; the latter is literal enough, and also acknowledges the context, that the “many” to which Christ referred (taking the original language into account, and no, it wasn’t Latin), was infinite—in other words, a “many” without end.

    Don’t you mean that it is a literal translation of the Greek, rather than the Latin?

    Your use of the word “infinite” is unfortunate. As I’ve pointed out here before, there are two concepts involved in the pro multis:

    1. Christ died for all men.

    2. It is possible that not all be saved. Further, a look at Christ’s own words in the Gospels indicates that it might actually be a few–rather than all or many.

    Interestingly enough, in the Paul-Lukan version of the institution of the Eucharist, there is no mention of “for many”–the indication is simply “for you”. The pro multis (peri pollon) is found in the Mt-Mk version. The Sacramental form combines the two: pro vobis et pro multis.

    I think that in the Mt-Mk version Christ is indicating that His death will not merely be merely for the Jews but rather also for many peoples (pro multis gentibus).

  33. Adam says:

    Does anyone know if other translations of the Mass (e.g., Spanish, French, German, Italian) are in the process of being re-translated to be in line with Liturgiam Authenticam, or are their 1960s translations pretty decent?

    Thank you for a great blog, Father!

  34. Michael says:

    From what I read this past week from someone directly involved in preparing the translation, there is an impasse over whether it will appear as “for many” or “for the many.” The former is a literal translation of the Latin; the latter is literal enough, and also acknowledges the context, that the “many” to which Christ referred (taking the original language into account, and no, it wasn’t Latin), was infinite—in other words, a “many” without end.

    Our Lord’s words come us recorded in Greek. In the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, we read that our Lord sheds His blood “for many”, not “for THE many”. It is incredibly arrogant to attempt to correct Holy Scripture.

    Both Hebrew and Aramaic have separate words for “many” and “all”, by the way, so if our Lord had wanted to say He was offering His blood for everyone, He could have easily done so. He didn’t.