![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Holy See: Recognitio of the Ordinary of Mass - Fr. Z reacts
About a gazillion people have written me e-mails with the story that the USCCB put out a news story about progress on the new translation of the Roman Missal. I have received scores of e-mails with links to various sites where people are jumping up and down about this.
"Great!", say I.
... ?
"But Father! But Father!", I can hear some of you saying, puzzled at my seeming lack of enthusiasm. "Isn’t this what you have been talking about for years? Isn’t your blog about all this translation stuff? Why let all these other people scoop you and put stories up before you do? Don’t you care anymore? Are you just going to keep writing about Fellay and Kung and wymynpriests and forget your roots?"
Relax.
Yes, I care.
I am also grateful for all the e-mails. Sometimes I get pretty busy and miss things in the press. So keep your mail coming in, even if I don’t answer.
And now that the story is out and wide spread I have a few comments.
First, there isn’t much new in the reports that have come out, as far as this blog is concerned. We have written about these changes, and the schedule before.
Second, the only real news is that the Vatican gave approval to the Ordinary.
Third, I knew about this a couple weeks ago and promised not to say anything about it.
You might remember that not long ago, the Prefect of the Cong. for Divine Worship, Card. Arinze, joined a group of priests I belong to for a annual conference. During the days he spent with us, I had the chance to speak with him about various issues, including obviously the translation. We got into some interesting points.
However, on our way in from the airport, I told him that I had taken off my "journalist" cap during his stay, so that he could relax and not worry about everything he said and did winding up on the internet somewhere, unless he said I could print it or blog it.
Subsequently, when we were talking about the recognitio, I asked him if I could write about it and he told me that he preferred that Bishop’s Conferences not learn about it from the blogosphere before the Holy See had a chance to write to them.
Fair enough!
So, when this story came out, I kept silent so that everyone else could pick it up long before I wrote about it, just to be sure.
However, now that I have explained why I went black on this story, and I am just writing now, let’s consider together the really interesting point in the news coverage.
Various internet news agencies put out stories, all with lists of some changes to common parts of the translation which will affect people directly.
Whereas CWN, for example, reported that in the words of consecration of the Most Precious Blood the priest will say, "poured out for you and for many (pro multis)", which is the single most important change in the English translation, CNS was entirely silent about it!
The left-leaning news agency of the USCCB was silent about the change to the words of consecration.
No one can believe they missed that part.
You will recall that since Paul VI made this decision, the Pope reserves to himself the tranlation of sacramental forms. Benedict XVI determined that a correct translation of pro multis must be included in all the vernacular versions and told Card. Arinze to write to that effect to all the Conferences of Bishops: the form had to be something like "for many", "for the many", "for the multitude" (French has "pour la multitude"), for example.
WDTPRS has four lengthy articles on the pro multis issue. I am happy to report that they played a role in the deliberations about what to do with pro multis. Also, in my recent PODCAzT I included an an answer to a question put to me in voicemail about this controversial point.
That said, I observe that the news report said "for many".
While I am glad that we will have a more accurate translation, I think that the better form would be the more precise "for the many", rather than the less precise "for many".
First, "the many" seems, to my ears, larger.
Second, "the many" sets it off as a group.
Third, "the many" has more of an eschatological direction to it, making the group sound like the body of the Chosen before the throne of God in heaven.
Either way will be an improvement.
However, I will continue gently to lobby in a happy sort of way until the Missal is ready for publication.
Father, I completely agree with your preference for “the many.” So gently and happily lobby away! (And yes, even “for many” is a big improvement.)
Comment by Antiquarian — 26 July 2008 @ 10:38 amI think the USCCB press release was just highlighting changes affecting words spoken by the congregation, so I don’t think there was necessarily any devious intent in not mentioning the changes to the words of consecration. [Yah…. right.]
Comment by Charles Goldsmith — 26 July 2008 @ 10:46 amIn a sense I wish, and this is an impossible wish, but who could have imagined Summorum Pontificum but a few years ago, that as an option, we could use the old offertory prayers in the Ordinary Form (multiple Eucharistic Prayers, why not two forms of the Offertory?) That translation could then be included in the new vernacular Missal. Apparently, Cardinal Medina Estevez was quite ready to permit this, but it all ground to a halt, thanks, I am certain, in part to the ghost of Archbishop Bugnini and his faithful followers. This combined with the most important translation of “pro multis,” would be in the very least a powerful witness to continuity.
Comment by Fr Gregoire Fluet — 26 July 2008 @ 10:56 amI agree with “the many.” Just the dry “many” makes it sound like 23 or 25 people will be saved.
Comment by Johannes — 26 July 2008 @ 10:56 amHow would one figure out whether “pro multis” means “for many” or “for the many”? If
Comment by Tobias — 26 July 2008 @ 11:02 amit meant “the many,” wouldn’t “pro multitudine” be expected? “The many” is
more precise only if that is what “pro multis” actually means here, which
isn’t clear to me. [What is clear is that the Latin says pro multis and not pro multitudine.]
“How would one figure out whether “pro multis” means “for many” or “for the many”?”
In the original context (that is, the event of the Last Supper itself), the term “many” was understood to be infinite; that is, a “many” without end. Therefore, while “the many” would not be as literal a translation, it would be a faithful one. And while “for all” would be a faithful one (as the Holy See maintained at the time, through its clarifications in the journal Notitiae, and elsewhere), it would not be quite as literal. With the arguments that the good Father has presented to us, the sacred liturgy is its own reliable source, and need not mimic the Scriptures. That, and given the underlying criterion of fidelity to the original Latin text, more than justifies a literal translation.
Comment by David L Alexander — 26 July 2008 @ 11:42 am“I am happy to report that they played a role in the deliberations about what to do with pro multis.”
Oy!
Comment by Hidden One — 26 July 2008 @ 11:46 am[Or, rather, a similar exclamation with a positive meaning. I need mroe sleep.]
Comment by Hidden One — 26 July 2008 @ 11:48 am“What is clear is that the Latin says pro multis and not pro multitudine”
Thank you, Fr. I am aware that the Latin says “pro multis” and not “pro
multitudine.” If it is a matter of precision, “multus” is itself imprecise
as to number and extent. That is why I see no reason to prefer “for the many”
to “for many”; “the many” is precise in a way that “multus” is not.
David L. Alexander:
Everything you say is true, but it does not address my question. I did not
Comment by Tobias — 26 July 2008 @ 12:01 pmsay that “the many” was wrong, I simply asked why there would be a preference.
Fr. Z. has given several reasons, but I think that the precision he prefers would
be justified only if the Latin used a similarly precise term like “multitudine”
instead of the imprecise “multis.”
Clarification: I meant that “multis” could mean either “many” or “the
Comment by Tobias — 26 July 2008 @ 12:04 pmmany,” but I cannot discern a reason for preferring one reading over the
other on the grounds of “precision.”
David L. Alexander said: And while “for all” would be a faithful one (as the Holy See maintained at the time, through its clarifications in the journal Notitiae, and elsewhere), it would not be quite as literal.
Rather, it wouldn’t be literal at all, and translations that are more literal are always to be preferred over “dynamic equivalence,” which is not translation at all, but substitution of an interpretation (whether correct or incorrect) for what the original actually says.
Comment by Jordanes — 26 July 2008 @ 12:13 pmI too have thought the “pro multis” was best rendered as “for the many,” simply to avoid a Calvinistic understanding of Double Predestination where some were saved, others were damned and it was entirely impossible to repent from what that decision was
Comment by The other David — 26 July 2008 @ 12:32 pmGreek (NT)= “hoi polloi” = “the many”.
Latin, however, does not have articles, definite or indefinite. English, however, does, so “the many” should be the preferred English translation.
However, if the Words of Institution/Consecration are pronounced in Latin (why not Aramaic?) then the whole issue is farily moot.
Comment by FrGregACCA — 26 July 2008 @ 12:37 pmOkay… someone with a copy of the “approved common parts”: the reports indicate that the Credo was part of this selection given the recognitio, right? So… can someone please tell me if the “approved” Credo has the word “men” stripped from the “for us [men] and for our salvation”, or not? I know it might seem minor to those who are intent on “pro multus”, but isn’t the Credo (and a lack of feminist encroachment) rather important, too?
In Christ,
Comment by Brian C. — 26 July 2008 @ 12:37 pmBrian
Does the recognitio apply to the American “variations” of the ICEL translation?
The most egregious of them was continuing to render “consubstantialem” in the Nicene Creed as “one in being” rather the literal “consubstantial” in the ICEL translation.
Comment by Another Tom — 26 July 2008 @ 12:41 pmThis is wonderful news! The “pro multis” issue was one of the biggest reservations I had with the Novus Ordo Mass. Thanks be to God!
Comment by Tridentine Catholic — 26 July 2008 @ 12:42 pmWhoops… typo: “pro multUs” should be “pro multIs”, of course…. sorry!
Anyway… the Credo, pleasepleaseplease…?
In Christ,
Comment by Brian C. — 26 July 2008 @ 12:45 pmBrian
Of course, if we’d just do the Novus Ordo in Latin, this really wouldn’t be as big a deal. The transition from one “translation” to the new would be rather seamless. :)
Like they say: It’s always better in Latin. LOL
Comment by Roman Sacristan — 26 July 2008 @ 12:52 pm