America Magazine article about “pro multis” in the corrected translation

The Jesuit run America Magazine has an article by Paul Philibert, O.P. about the “pro multis” issue.

A Dominican writing for Jesuits about liturgy.  Hmmmm.

I have written about this issue quite a few times.  Let’s see what Fr. Philibert has to say with my emphases and comments.

Over the past 37 years, English-speaking Catholics became accustomed to hearing a particular translation of the Latin text for the eucharistic prayer [consecration of the Precious Blood]: “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 men so that sins may be forgiven.”  [Being "accustomed" to something isn't an auspicious start.  Catholics were accustomed to the pre-Conciliar form of Holy Mass, too.  People are "accustomed" to their vices as well.]

Since 1985, the word men has been omitted, but never the word all. [The word "homines" can be translated more generically to indicate both sexes.  On the other hand, "all", however, has its own content of meaning.] Now, however, as many bishops are mandating liturgy workshops to prepare their clergy to use the new third typical edition of the Roman Missal, formerly referred to as the Sacramentary, [which in Latin has for centuries been known as the Missale Romanum and not Sacramentarium...] priests are being [note the word choice here...] commanded to replace the word all. Among the many infelicities that the new English text, slated to become normative in Advent 2011, holds in store for Catholics is the replacement of the translation of the Latin “pro vobis et pro multis” that we have known since 1973 as “for you and for all [men]” with the newly proposed “for you and for many.”

Why is this happening?

I recently returned from an international meeting (the general chapter of the Order of Preachers) in Rome, where the Eucharist was celebrated in the many languages of the participants. [Latin might have brought them together as one group even better, but I digress.] I was particularly interested to note how the phrase “pro multis” was rendered. What I discovered, in brief, is that in German, the Eucharistic prayer says “for you and for all” (“für euch und für alle”); [That must change, of course, in their new translation.] in Spanish the text is “for you and for all men” (“por vosotros y por todos los hombres”); [ditto] in Italian the text is “for you and for all” (“per voi e per tutti”); [ditto] and in French the text is “for you and for the multitude” (“pour vous et pour la multitude”), [Which is actually a good rendering of "multis", since it implies a vast number of souls while not stating that it is every soul who ever lived.] which evokes the great multitude of the apocalypse in Rv 7:9 and 19:6. [Watch this.  You would expect better argumentation from a Dominican...] In none of these translations of the Latin “pro multis” is there the implication, unmistakable in the proposed English translation “for many,” of a less-than-universal divine will for salvation in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. [Nice claim.  I wonder if he is right.  When the vernacular translations first came out, there was enough concern that "all" did in fact imply the universal salvation so that the Congregation treated the issue twice in Notitiae.  In their treatment the Congregation admitted that, yes, "all" could be interpreted as being universal, but ended with the argument, that surely Catholics don't believe that.  Well... go to a funeral as celebrated in most parishes these days and check to see of that is the case or not.  I think we simply have to counter the writer's statement with, "Piffle.  Many people think that is exactly what "all" implies.  Gratis asseritur gratis negatur.] These translations, of course, were all made before the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was issued in 2001 by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.

Still, as recently as September 2010, the German bishops’ conference rejected the Roman request for a new translation. [I refer the reverend writer to Apostolos suos.  Ultimately, the German bishops' conference has control over their Chinese take-out orders between sessions.  It cannot tell Rome that it won't do what Liturgiam authenticam says or what the Roman Pontiff has decreed for the translation of forms of sacraments.  Reminder: Only the Pope has the authority to determine what the translations of forms of sacraments.  Review AAS 66 (1974) 98-99.  This is what Pope Benedict did.  He directed the CDW to inform all bishops conferences that the translation of "pro multis" must be "for many" or its equivalent.] The conference explained that the present sacramentary was widely accepted by both priests and faithful—a fact of great merit—and that this reception must not be jeopardized by replacing “good German texts” with “unfamiliar new interpretations.”  [Here we see his argument at the top of the piece.  This is what people are used to.  There was great concern for what people were used to in the 1960's, wasn't there.  The writer's argument is what Card. George once called "a "Lefevbrism of the Left".]

Because the Latin language does not have articles, the phrase “pro multis” can be translated either as “for the many” or “for many.” In English, without the article, many is restrictive rather than universal, suggesting some—perhaps a handful, perhaps thousands, but certainly not a majority nor the totality of human beings. [Hmmm... I think the writer has made another empty claim here.  I can think of some contexts in which many can imply the totality, just as it can imply the majority.]

In talking about the new Missal, many [!] U.S. bishops have expressed the opinion that a literally exact translation of the Latin text will restore the depth of meaning of the Mass text. Really? [Yes, really.  They have in fact expressed that opinion.] In this case, [Here we go!] a slavishly literal translation of the Latin looks very much like the kind of mistake that a Latin teacher would correct in the work of a high school student learning the ancient language. “Don’t be afraid to add the definite article if the words don’t make sense otherwise,” the teacher might well say.  [Again, we see some pretty sloppy thought.  The writer moves from "literally exact" to "slavishly literal".  Which is it going to be?]

Making Sense?

The words do not make sense. [He seems still to be talking about "for many" instead of "for all".] They run contrary to the church’s constant tradition of the universal salvific will of Christ[No, actually, they don't.  They imply that not all will avail themselves of what Christ did for all.  Many will.  Not all.] This has been expressed with perfect clarity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 605), which reads:

[Jesus] affirms that he came to “give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men [sic] without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”

There is no ambiguity in this explanation (and several similar texts might be cited from the Catechism). On the contrary, the need for such an explanation raises the alarm that the new Missal’s translation of “pro multis” as “for many” is simply too narrow theologically and would require a similar explanation. [Hang on... isn't the writer a member of the Order of Preachers?  Isn't it their job to preach and to teach?  Why should "explanations" be in any way a problem?  Furthermore, the writer might have taken a few more steps, beyond the Catechism of the Catholic Church to dig around for greater understanding of the problem at hand.  For example... We read in the 1566 Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (which is not wrong, by the way)  that:

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 emphases. 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.)

What is this all about?  Effectively the Church said that she can't say "for all" in the consecration of the Precious Blood.  And it explains why pretty clearly.]

Without one, [and explanation] the ecclesiological overtones of “for many” mirror [And here, friends, we see the writer nail his colors to the mast...] a growing tendency among “restorationists” to reinvent the church as a faithful remnant of those untouched by the ravages of secularization and cultural change — those, in other words, who are perfectly comfortable in a pre-Vatican II world, preoccupied with its own sanctity and well-being. [I believe the writer may have forgotten that it was BENEDICT XVI who made the determination that "pro multis" will be "for many".  In the meantime, is he not pre-occupied with his own sanctity?  Furthermore, is it fair to characterize the pre-Vatican II view with being preoccupied with its "own well-being"?  That was the age in which the great missionary work was done, schools and hospitals were build etc.  Now those schools are used for an indifferent presentation of the Catholic faith and not a few "Catholic" hospitals provide abortions: the ultimate violation of social justice.] This runs counter, however, to the ecclesiology of the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” of Vatican II as expressed in its first statement of principle: “Christ is the light of the nations…and desires to bring to all humanity the light of Christ…. since the Church…is a sacrament—a sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race…” (No. 1). [The writer has created a rupture between the ecclesiology of the Church before the Council and the ecclesiology of the Church after the Council.  Enough said.  Also, I believe the English translation of the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy have "for many".]

In the May 1970 issue of Notitiae, the official periodical of the Vatican’s Congregation for Worship, the eminent Jesuit biblical scholar Max Zerwick gave an exegetical explanation for translating a Hebrew text that underlies Jesus’ words as “for all” [Gee... I wonder where he got that reference.  I referred to it above, but in passing.  Let's see how he misreads it...]:

Pro multis seems to have been used by Jesus himself. [Zerwick and the writer's first mistake.  This is nothing but a guess based on the work of the Lutheran Joachim Jeremias who purposely set out to find an interpretation of the Greek which he had already predetermined.] This is so because calling to mind the Suffering Servant who sacrifices himself, as in Isaiah, it is suggested that Jesus himself would fulfill what was foretold about the Servant of the Lord. The principal text in question is Isaiah 53:11b-12: “Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.”…  [At this point, you can usefully spend your time humming a tune, or something.]

Therefore the formula pro multis [for many] instead of pro omnibus [for all] in our texts (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28; Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28) seems to be due to the intended allusion to the Suffering Servant whose work Jesus carried out by his death….

The Semitic mind of the Bible could see that universality connoted in the phrase “for many.” In fact that connotation was certainly there because of the theological context. Yet, however eloquent it was for ancient peoples, today that allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is clear only to experts.  [Frankly, I thought St. Jerome got it right.  Even if Zerwick were right, in parroting Jeremias (cf. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. VI, 540.36-54.25), who got it wrong, that argument still wouldn't be relevant.  We are not dealing here with translation of Holy Scripture.  This is liturgical translation. Joseph Ratzinger confronts this very issue of "pro multis" in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003).   He makes three 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).

To recap: Translation of liturgical texts is not the same as translation of scriptural texts.  Liturgical constitute their own theological locus and they must be respected as such.]

Stilted English

The new English translation of the liturgical texts, which some claim to be more accurate and more faithful, [Yes, indeed... some claim that.  I claim that.  Would the writer like to review with me some lame-duck ICEL texts side by side with the Latin?] is in fact expressed in English that is stilted, verbose and (as in the present case) theologically inadequate. [We have pretty much beaten the writer's theological argument into the dust.  But when it comes to the issue of style we may have some common ground.] What is lost especially is the matter of evangelization. The celebration of Sunday Mass is the most effective vehicle of evangelization for the greatest number of people. [Hmmm... is this a utilitarian argument?] In many people’s lives, it is the one chance the church has to reach them and to awaken their faith. Do church leaders want to signal that the grace of Christ is available only to the regular, traditional churchgoer? Is their intention to leave out the rest? [What is this?  A high school essay?] More and more it looks as if the covert message [Oooooo!] beneath the written text is one of effective exclusion rather than antecedent inclusion of all humanity in God’s will for salvation. [Sorry, that's just plain unworthy.]
In general, the new Missal’s language is of no help here. At a conference held in Raleigh, N.C., last October, the St. Mary of the Lake workshop presenters offered as an example of a supposedly significant improvement in the translation of the Mass the following Collect (for Dec. 17):

Filled with the divine gift, Almighty God, we beg you to grant our desire that, enkindled by your Spirit, we may blaze like bright torches before the face of your Christ when he comes.

[That's not the Collect for 17 December.  I think our writer meat the Post Communion.  So much for that.  Still...

Here's the Latin:
Divino munere satiati, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,
hoc desiderio potiamur, ut, a tuo accensi Spiritus,
ante conspectum venientis Christi tui,
velut clara luminaria fulgeamus.

Here is the LAME-DUCK VERSION:
God our Father,
as you nouish us with the food of life,
give us also your Spirit,
so that we may be radiant with his light
at the coming of Christ your Son.

You decide.  I agree that the corrected version leaves a lot to be desired.  But it is better than the Lame-Duck version we have been using.  I would like to see a better corrected version than that, however.]

The Latin teacher mentioned above might well say to the translator, “Come on now, you can do better than that. Who talks like that?” Well, it appears we all will have to in a matter of months. Unless…

[Having nailed his colors to the mast earlier - he doesn't like Pope Benedict and he embraces a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity - he is now advocating disobedience to proper ecclesiastical authority.  That is what I read in his ellipsis.]

Examples of the coming changes to the Roman Missal are available from the U.S. bishops’ conference. For more on America’s coverage of the controversy click here.

Paul Philibert, O.P., is the promoter of permanent formation for the Southern Province of the Dominicans in the United States.

Let’s sum up.

He argues that people are used to the lame-duck translation, and therefore we shouldn’t change it.  That is “Lefebvrism of the the Left”.  People are used to vices.  People were used to the way the Mass was before the Council.  None of that made a difference back then.  The translation of “pro multis” was simply wrong. It had to be changed.

He argues from the same old tired arguments about Scripture and from guesses about what Jesus really said.  Fail.  Translation of liturgy is not the same as translation of Scripture.

He  doesn’t deal with the Church’s previous explanations of why the Church says “pro multis” and not “pro omnibus” during the consecration.

He accuses Pope Benedict of a pre-Conciliar mentality, actually being against the Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology and he suggests that Pope Benedict doesn’t care about “evangelization”.

He seems to be daunted by the possibility that he may have to explain what this means.

He suggests disobedience.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

66 Responses to America Magazine article about “pro multis” in the corrected translation

  1. SimonDodd says:

    If a criterion for assessing the accuracy of a liturgical translation is to look at how it is translated in other languages, as Philibert implies in paragraph four, presumably he supports the change to “and with your spirit”? After all, “English is the only major language of the Roman Rite which did not translate the Latin word spiritu as ‘spirit’. The Italian (spirito), French (esprit), Spanish (espíritu) and German (Geiste)renderings of 1970 all translated the Latin spiritu precisely.” And Fr. Z has already pointed out the hypocrisy of the rhetorical flourish with which the article opens.

    You can always tell when an argument is for show: it will support the author’s preferred outcome in the case at hand, but the author will refuse to apply that same principle neutrally and evenhandedly to other situations where it cuts against his preferred outcome there.

  2. Brad says:

    Amerika magazine, lol.

    He seems to have a decided irk about the word “slavish”. If being a “slave of Christ” is good enough for St. Paul, it is good enough for him, and for a worm like me.

  3. Having published on it, that potential allusion to the Suffering Servant is tenuous, at best, and one shouldn’t build much of a case on it.

  4. If scriptural references are only clear to experts, and if that means we can change the words of scriptural references to whatever this article’s writer feels is more appropriate and easy for us stupid parishioners to understand, I feel that we stupid parishioners should be able to change the words of this article (written for experts) to whatever we feel is more appropriate and easy to understand.

    I also think that, since the author’s name refers to all kinds of confusing historical things which are fully understood only by historians, hagiographers, and Germanic linguists, we should be able to change his name to something more understandable also. Lessee. Paul means “short guy”, yeah? Philibert… “filu-berht”, very bright. And O.P. means “order of preachers”, yes?

    So… Shortdude Lightturnedup, a member of St. Dominic’s Unpaid Speaker Bureau. That’s a good name.

  5. Banjo pickin girl says:

    I don’t know much about anything but I had thought the O.P.’s were more consistent than they are turning out to be. America is not my favorite magazine either.

    How I wish we had stuck with Latin. On the other hand, that might have been a barrier to my conversion.. Oh well, we have to work with what we have.

    In uncharitable moments I think bad things about some people. 8-(

    Brad, I too, desire to be a slave for Christ. Or an oblation, poured out, albeit rather messily.

  6. Excuse me, I got that wrong. After checking the Biblical footnotes, the gentleman’s new name is ReallymynameisPrayedforbutShortdudeworkedbetterintheRomanworld Lightturnedup, S.D.U.S.B. [Alright. Enough with the name. Stick to the arguments, please.]

  7. Rich says:

    There can be misunderstandings among the faithful not matter how “pro multis” is translated. Here’s and idea: man up and catechize the people from the pulpit. There are always going to be some who whine about what you say not matter what you say. For some reason, the ones who are feared are those who complain about doing things the Church’s way and not theirs. Hopefully the day will soon come when it will be considered “pastoral” to tell these people, “Sorry, you’re wrong, and you need to change the way you think and do things in order to advance in God’s grace.” That is what would be best for them spiritually, and not letting them get away with calling themselves Catholic while believing and doing anything they wish.

  8. Tom in NY says:

    In the four citations, in order:
    πολλων redemptionem pro multis (Mk 10:45)
    πολλων redemptionem pro multis (Mt. 20:28)
    πολλων pro multis effunditur (Mk. 14:24)
    πολλων pro multis effunditur (Mt. 26:28)

    πολλοις Iustificabit…multos Is. 53:11 (Greek via katapi.org.uk; Vg. via vatican.va)
    The liturgical Latin is clear; the OT and NT references are clear. Is there another agenda?
    Salutationes omnibus.

  9. Patikins says:

    Banjo pickin girl: there ARE many good Dominican Friars. Some provinces are better known for their orthodoxy than others. While I am disappointed by his poor scholarship and his apparent dissent, I am not terribly surprised.

    The pro multis translation as “for many” seems so straightforward to me. It seems like Fr. Philibert is trying to make something out of nothing. I’m not surprised though and I think we’ll hear more about this particular translation this year.

  10. MrD says:

    Why has it taken so long to correct the translations?
    Why were certain phrases and words taken of out or added to the Roman Canon at V2?

    The more I read about Vatican II and what has happened within the Church, the more my faith is shaken. I have always preferred a more reverent, traditional mass but without fully understanding what has changed. The Orthodox appear to have avoided these problems which all appear to stem from the Protestant Reformation heresies. How is it that the Orthodox Church, without fully embracing the authority of the Pope, has preserved and maintained a more pure liturgy over the centuries? How is it that the Orthodox could maintain such purity in defiance of (or absence of) the Pope?

    (Part of this comes from recently reading “The Roman Rite: Old and New” by Don Pietro Leone, which has really frightened me. It basically refers to the NO as a Protestant Mass but valid because the Pope says so. I wonder if Father Z has ever critiqued this polemic? you can find it here https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5FHI25-yjGbNTE4N2VkYTctODY0MC00NTMwLTliZTItMjhhZWU0MjU1ODBi&hl=en )

  11. murtheol says:

    Both Fathers have it wrong. Those words refer to Redemption for all, not Salvation for all. Once the difference is understood there is no problem with “for all.” There is a theological difference between redemption and salvation. Thanks for listening

  12. murtheol says:

    Again, all are redeemed. Not all are saved.

  13. TJerome says:

    Father Philibert as long winded as he was, never really made a convincing case. But the real point is that he is wedded to the past, the past in which he was young, and was going to change the world. It didn’t happen. The laity will do just fine with “the many” even if he can’t handle it.

  14. Childermass says:

    He’s from the Southern Province of the Dominicans. THAT SAYS IT ALL.

    The Central Province is full of nonsense too.

    But I assure you, Father Z and friends, that the Western Province is very good and the Eastern Province is fantastic.

    In fact, the Eastern Province had the largest novitiate class (23) in 2010-2011 in 45 years. They are bursting with young orthodox vocations. I know friars from that Province who would make quick and merciless work of Fr. Philipert’s rant.

    The biological solution will sort this out.

  15. Banjo pickin girl says:

    I didn’t know about the reputations of the various provinces because I am just a convert and don’t know anything. My parish is in the eastern province. I have deduced that several posters here go to my parish. So far so good there but things can go south quickly as we all know. I pray a lot for our parish and all priests and all those who are without a good faithful priest. Especially those in rural areas who have no real choice of where to go. I am lucky, in this city I am within a 15 minute drive of about 9 parishes, some better than others but they all have Christ, right? (I know, I know…)

  16. TNCath says:

    TJerome says: “The laity will do just fine with “the many” even if he can’t handle it.”

    The translation is not “the many,” but “many.” Had they actually used, “for you and for the many,” I think this entire “pro multis” controversy could have been avoided. Nonetheless, Roma locuta est…

    That said, Fr. Z. mentioned something about a Domincan’s writing for Jesuits about liturgy, which reminds me of the old joke about what constitutes good Jesuit liturgy: no one gets hurt and nothing gets broken.

    As for childermass’s earlier remark about the Southern Dominican province, I too can vouch for that. The one Dominican parish in our diocese (the oldest church in our diocese, by the way) and most of the Dominicans assigned there the past 40 years shares the mindset of Father Paul Philbert’s article. They do liturgies on their own terms.

  17. asophist says:

    I hope the great majority of Catholics really don’t have a problem with the new translations. If the Latin part of Holy Mother Church had just stuck with the Latin language in Her liturgy (as commanded by Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution, “Veterum Sapientia”), we would all be better off!

  18. Childermass says:

    The last time I was in DC, I met a very holy and ancient friar (born during Benedict XV’s reign!) from the Eastern Province. I was asking him about the provinces, and he told me he was one of those sent out to start up the Southern Province in the 1970s. He said (eyes rolling) that it went downhill quickly and that he was absolutely thrilled to get out of there.

    That’s the thing with orders—if the Rupture types get in the driver’s seat, orthodox religious (who have taken vows of obedience) are in a hellish situation.

    Thank God two of the provinces have great people in charge. The tide has turned for them with not as much damage as some other groups. The Jesuits, for example, are going to have to shrink and shrink for a while longer before reformers can get in charge and bring the order back to the charism of St. Ignatius.

    I would say that in the USA, you can’t do better than the Eastern or Western Dominicans for a pre-19th century order of male religious.

  19. Girgadis says:

    I wonder what Father Philbert means by “the traditional, regular churchgoer”? If someone cannot even fulfill their minimal Sunday obligation, does he really think the liturgy should be manipulated so as not to chance offending them? Wouldn’t it be better to help them realize that while all may avail themselves of the salvation Christ won for us, it’s not a given just because you show up for Mass occasionally? I think Rich has it right – this needs to be preached from the pulpit.

    The fear of offending people could help land many of them in Hell.

  20. Joe in Canada says:

    In my limited experience, English translations of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom say “and for many”. The Byzantines are generally not prone to political correctness when translating.

  21. Peggy R says:

    It seems sensible to see how other “pro multis” is translated into other romance languages from Latin. I am partial to the French “la multitude.” It seems quite literal and vague enough on the quantity of people who could be saved, which is what the Latin sounds like as well. “Many” is a weak, vague word in general. Why not “multitude” in English as well?

    He’s all about the idea that Mass must be “inclusive” and every one needs “to get something”–affirmation and communion–while they are there. Forget this idea of worshiping Our God for His own sake.

  22. Young Canadian RC Male says:

    Sigh. Does the average pew go-er really care about this “pro-multis” argument? Most don’t really care about their faith at all and just do it out of family tradition or some other reason. As for the ones that do, we don’t care about a big theological/philosophical argument about this (I’ll leave that to you theologians and Ph.D holders and candidates), we just want our most sacred prayer of all time to BE sacred and accurate translation helps that.

    Although I do admit, sometimes I feel like Pope Benedict XVI should just declare a formal schism, and whoever wants to put their soul in jeaporady can do so in the schismatic church, and those of us who love our faith truly can be at peace without anymore of this callous and shallow in-fighting. Just let us faithful be faithful is all I’m asking.

  23. EoinOBolguidhir says:

    Bravissimo, Father. That was an extraordinarily edifying entry.

    By arguing what he believes the denotative meanings carry as connatative meanings, he reveals that he is not writing from a disinterested pursuit of truth, but from a particular viewpoint that he wishes to pass off as being the result of his disinterested pursuit of the truth. The scholarly nature of the argument is a sign intended to signify his truthfulness. It is good to remember that Umberto Eco defined a sign as anything that can be used to lie.

    He exploits, perhaps, the concept of the arbitrary nature of the linguistic and other signs to insert his own meanings into what those signs say to people. But in matters of faith and morals within the Church, words have concrete meanings which come from and may be defined by an authority, the Magisterium of the Church. It is poor form and Protestantized thinking to say that there is any other authority which should guide our understanding, whether he is referring to himself or to scripture (as interpreted by him or anyone else).

    If he had come out an openly stated his intention, this would have been an honest argument, but in withholding it, he has turned an academic argument in to an act of dissemblance. I hope that Permanent Promoter of Formation doesn’t mean that the formation of clergy is his part of his job, but I fear that it is.

  24. Childermass says:

    It’s so ironic that he accuses those who support celebrating the manufactured 1960s product known as the Novus Ordo with a bit more reverence and traditional trappings of not caring about evangelization. Very rich, considering how Mass attendance has collapsed since the liturgical revolution. How about we try something else, Father, since your feel-good McDonald’s model of liturgy doesn’t seem to be working?

  25. EoinOBolguidhir says:

    Childermass: Right on, Brother!

  26. lycopodium says:

    Errata corrige.
    Let me know if it is theologically and liturgically correct translate “quod pro vobis TRADETUR” with “OFFERTO IN SACRIFICIO per voi” ["OFFERED IN SACRIFICE for you”]. Many progressivist theologians oppose.

  27. Cazienza Puellae says:

    All the more reason to use Latin exclusively in Latin-rite churches and to have lots of catechesis about the Mass texts from the pulpit and in other contexts.

  28. boko fittleworth says:

    @MrD

    Dr. Geoffrey Hull’s The Banished Heart answers your questions about the seeming paradox of schismatic orthodoxy in Chapter Five: The Primacy of Peter. Great book!

  29. Joseph says:

    Wow. That “unless”!
    It sounds so sibilant.

  30. jbpolhamus says:

    It seems worth pointing out that “pro multis” has been translated, understood, and accepted as “for many” in every Latin/English hand missal published before 1969 as well. To pretend it is something “correctable” and to assert that the whole church got it wrong from Gutenberg’s press on forward until ’69, is naive and disingenuous. Poor guy. He’s going to have a rough time of it from here on out.

  31. michael-can says:

    ” For All” means Muslim, Protestant, Hindu etc, all will be redeem, some how at the last supper, our Divine Lord worded as ” For many” mainly His follower, His flock, His sheep and His elect, many would like to say ” For all”, they just want to feel save, yes it is ” for all, then there will be salvation for sure. Confession is no longer needed, Sacrament are no longer needed, finally the Dogma of the Catholic Church are no longer needed, Ah, just speak out! be truthful with yourself.

    A radio evangelist, proclaim ” once you are save by Jesus, you will always be save”, a caller came on and asked ” if I stole thing from a store, would I be still save, once I am save”, the evangelist proclaim again ” once save, no matter what you do after that, Jesus had already paid the price for you and you will always be save”
    Ah!!! then Fr. Philbert please come on line and explain: if you don’t, I fear you sound like this radio evangelist, by the way you, Fr. Philbert, you should relies that there is a place called hell, I know my name is in there, only by God grace and hard work can my Divine Lord save me!!!! I pray that you understand the seriousness and the danger you are putting many souls in, I know one thing for sure, there are no traditionalist, there are no liberal or Conservative in heaven, there are only souls that follow Jesus, and carry his cross, for My Divine Lord is the Alfa and Omega, He is the past, present and future, by the way Fr. Philbert, St. Peter still hold the key and who ever sit in his chair always hold the key, I know you took a vow of obedience, if you think you don’t need the Catholic Church, please take Hans kuns with you!!!!

  32. Oleksander says:

    MrD, the Eastern Orthodox liturgy didnt get its present appearance until the high middle ages (13-14th centuries) and still underwent changes later on, google the Russian Old Believers – and understand the lackluster liturgies in the Latin Church you see are a phenomenon of the Western European world – in central and eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Russia), the near eastern world (Palestine, Lebanon) and the far eastern world (China) the liturgy is largely unchanged save use of the vernacular.. I’m Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic myself and our Ukrainian liturgy hasnt changed, we actually have elements preserved that predate the “Old Believers” since reunion with Rome took place 70 years before the Old Believer schism

    And the Faith isnt about pretty vestments and lace and holy smoke, it’s about Faith!

    Eastern Orthodox you will find out have their own problems, ignoring the insane nationalist jurisdictionalism, They have a hard time determining who is baptized.. for example the “Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia” rebaptizes everyone regardless of previous Church (which is a sin against the Holy Spirit I believe, you know the unforgivable kind), where as her sister Church, which is the second largest in USA behind the Greek Orthodox – the “Orthodox Church in America”, accepts all baptisms from Catholics and traditional Protestants and also accept Catholic priests (but only if the bishop decides to, otherwise he’s reordained) so if you’re a “ROCOR” faithful you may end up at visiting an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy where your own ROCOR church dose not recognize the celebrating priest’s baptism, let alone his ordination, so dont think the grass is greener..

  33. Nathan says:

    jbpolhamus is on to something here. I fear that Fr. Philibert is assuming, at least implicitly, that the almost two millenia of Catholics prior to his generation were either too blind or too ignorant to understand “pro multis” theologically.

    The same standard the Church has traditionally used to evaluate scriptural exegisis, theological propositions, and interpretation of ancient texts should be used here. Has the Church used “pro multis” since time immemorial, and has the Church’s understanding of how it fits into the dogmas regarding redemption and salvation been consistent? Of course it has, and therefore “for many” is the appropriate translation.

    I also feel for Fr. Philibert. Like so many religious/priestly intellectuals of his generation, the substance of his life’s work–the euphoria of framing the Second Vatican Council and implementing it in the manner supported by the vast majority of prelates is coming undone. While I’m very glad the Church is making progress in undoing the damage these men wrought, I think we can understand why Fr. Philibert is, intellectually, continuing to grasp at straws, and pray that the Holy Spirit may impart His gift of wisdom upon him.

    In Christ,

  34. Randii says:

    Good points by MRD about the Orthodox and their ability to maintain unity w/o a Pope and the lack of unity in the Catholic church with a pope.

    It’s not just a unity of the Mass – it’s a unity that goes far beyond that and contrast like night and day with the Catholic church.

    It’s a paradox but true.

    If you go to Orthodox catechisis in the US it is orthodox and vibrant – far more coherent than Catholic catechisis which varies immensely from diocese to diocese. We’ve all heard the horror stories about RCIA. With the Orthodox the faith taught/presented to potential conveerts is a unified apostolic faith not the mishmash you find in the Catholic church. Basically being told in some (many?) RCIA presentations that you don’t really need to believe this or that church teaching.

    The author above suggests disobedience and it sounds like some priests in the US are indeed going to go that route. I live in an affirming diocese and am told by Catholic friends who attend Mass that they expect their priests will resist this change – and these Catholics are all for resisting it. It’ll be interesting to se if the diocese of Erie refuses to go along as their ordinary has been strongly opposed to these chages and is still opposing them.

    Much like American nuns have apparently successfully resisted the Vatican visitations. The Vatican was forced to withdraw 3 key questions the nuns refused to answer. As word is now coming out that some in the LCWR are muting their criticisms of the visitations. Wonder why – the nuns held their ground and it looks like the Vatican backed down. So much for the unity of belief among many consecrated American women and the Vatican.

    Does this all mean the Orthodox “model” is the more historically Christian model? Who knows, but a case can be made that it is.

  35. Fr Martin Fox says:

    Here’s how I explained it to some sympathetic, yet concerned folks, who didn’t like changing “all” to many”:

    The text never should have been translated as “all”–the Latin does not support it, and the New Testament texts don’t. It’s very plain when you look. And now, it is finally being fixed.

    But in comparing “all” and “many,” many seems a downer. But take “all” out of the equation; it never should have been part of it in the first place.

    Then why should “many” be seen as bad? If we play the word-association game, I say white, you say…black; I say go, you say stop; I say many, you say…few. Remember that this recalls a question our Lord was asked: “are only a few saved?” If you weren’t thinking in terms of “all,” you’d have no reason to object to “many.” And of course, “many” is quite correct, because we don’t know that “all” will be saved, but it’s very hopeful to say “many” will be…as opposed to “few.”

    So the problem isn’t the term “many”–which is accurate and unambiguously so–but with the misunderstanding that had to be fixed sooner or later.

  36. Childermass says:

    Randi, Eastern Orthodoxy in the USA is an extremely tiny boutique religion. Go to Greece or Romania or Russia and then see if the grass is really greener.

  37. William says:

    The present, January, issue of the “Magnificat” presents a quite beautiful and very cogent justification for the Mass translations soon to be in effect (pp. 5 – 8). Copies of this article should be reproduced and widely disseminated among the faithful–soon and often–to counter the resistance and disobedience that is likely to ensue. If your clergy is not interested, then do it yourselves!

  38. Randii says:

    Childermass – Orthodoxy in the US is growing rather quickly. From immigration and converts from both Catholicism and evangelicalism. It’s more, IMO, than a boutique religion. There are too few Orthodox churches in my area. Most are bursting at the seams. While Catholic parishes are being closed.

  39. benedetta says:

    To me, it reads as though he is searching for some reason to attack the translation and this is what he was able to come up with. The reason I say this is because he leaps to the conclusion of this ‘pre-conciliar’ judgement without being able to flesh out any support for that. One could look at the shift from ‘all’ to ‘many’ in a quite different light, and not ascribe the condemnation that the Holy Father is somehow against evangelisation. For instance, I read this difference as being generally much more ecumenical and respectful of individual conscience and free will, it refrains from the negative ‘proseltyzing’ that assumes that all do accept the Lord as God. Where I am I am constantly reminded, by Church authorities as well as secular media, that many in fact precisely do not accept the notion of Our Lord as Saviour of all and that this fact calls me to recognize the free will of all to follow the religion of their choosing, or none at all, and even dictates that I have no right as one who practices one particular religion to participate in civil discourse with respect to how as a society we together are to go about ordering our lives. If we stick with the ‘all’, isn’t the Church really being pre-conciliar and insensitive to those believers who embrace other faith traditions, or those who believe all religion is a myth?
    And the argument that we should continue because we have been doing it for this arbitrary number of years is sort of bizarre…Obviously the multitude adapts to a lot of other things and carries on quite well enough at any rate.
    The reality is that especially in this very plugged in, hooked up electronic busy kind of a life people are leading, there are many pleas even in secular media to have moments where things are slowed down and people are permitted time to pray and meditate and breathe in silence. So, toward this end a new translation, new words and forms of expression will likely prove refreshing on the whole and focus the heart on the content prayers. Isn’t this a plus for active participation?
    It just reads like a generalized attack or vote against the new translation, with an attempt to hang the entire objection on a single word…

  40. Kate says:

    Were there no Poles at this international meeting in Rome?

    “…za was i za wielu…” – “for you and for many”
    Also, another point :
    “…a bedzie uzdrowiona dusza moja.” – “and my soul (dusza) shall be healed.”

    Is there a reason the writer omitted Polish translations of the Latin?

  41. Childermass says:

    It’s easy to “grow quickly” when the combined EO population in America is about 1/60th of the Catholic Church. And even then it is not without its scandals (both financial and sexual), nominalism (especially in the GOA), and even Modernism.

    And check out countries where Orthodox aren’t outnumbered by Buddhists, like Greece and Russia, where Sunday liturgy attendance is in the single digits, where birth control (now generally allowed for married couples by EO bishops) is rampant, and abortions outnumber live births. I haven’t even mentioned the ethnic/political power struggles between patriarchates and jurisdictional chaos and extremely poor record of evangelization.

    I came close to becoming EO myself until I saw that it is no safe haven from the crisis of the modern world. We are all in this crisis together, and there is no escaping it by ‘doxing.

  42. AnAmericanMother says:

    Childermass,

    It’s been my experience in the South that Catholics tend to be more orthodox (little o not big o) than other regions — unless they just moved here from somewhere else.

    How did the O.P.s get so off base in this environment?

    Wrt the Orthodox – hereabouts they tend to be very ethnically oriented, so if you aren’t Greek or Russian you feel a little bit out of place. Our parish has been sponsoring joint prayer services with our local Greek Orthodox cathedral and they are wonderful, welcoming people (with a great schola) but no way around it there’s a serious cultural divide. Our choir had fun trying to sing in Greek though! (and they didn’t laugh at us – much.)

  43. KristenB says:

    I was under the impression that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is for the initiated…

  44. Jayna says:

    Not just fail, Father. Epic fail. Monstrously epic fail.

    AnAmericanMother – Are you in the Archdiocese of Atlanta? If you are, I think I know which parish. Even if I can’t remember the name right off hand.

  45. boko fittleworth says:

    Here’s the deal with the Southern Dominican Province, as it was explained to me by an Eastern Province Dominican: After the Council, members of the Central and Eastern Provinces got together to create a reform province, the new Southern Province. There were two visions of “reform.” An authentic ressourcement, back to the founder (Dominic) reform, and a spirit-of-Vatican-II vision. The spirit of Vatican II version won out, many of the authentic reform Dominicans went back to their original provinces, and the Southern Province got on with its life. I am confident that my quick summary is riddled with inaccuracies and and oversimplifications. I am also confident that my quick summary is, basically, true. So there you go. I am also sure that there are positive things happening with the Southern Province. God bless ‘em.

  46. JMody says:

    In addition to the flagrant insubordination, seeming insistence on universal salvation, and weak argumentation of the Fr. F, O.P., I am intrigued by the quote that Fr. Z found and employs against this argument: that it is a “Lefebvrism of the Left”.

    Father, I think your own sense of history and accuracy and respect for the issues around the Second Council of the Vatican makes this a comment far beneath you. Mgr. Lefebvre’s comments against the New Mass and the new rules for formation and everything else were based on far more than merely “you take away that to which I am accustomed”, and this quip seems to be an indirect barb at the real issues he raised. It pushes them off the table and says that he was only arguing to keep what he liked out of mere personal taste (and no other reason).

    “Lefebvrism” would seem to me to be more along the lines of calling a bluff, or even Missouri “Show-Me-ism”: You want to make all these changes which have several alarming implications and which I contest will materially weaken the Faith, and you say it is only pastoral, and you say that I am the pastor of the diocese, ERGO, I will implement NONE of these changes. Put between obeying the Pope and obeying what his informed conscience told him of Tradition, he stuck with Tradition — and didn’t Chesterton call tradition “the democracy of the dead — stopping the tyranny of those bullies who happen merely to be alive”, or something like that?
    I would offer up that Fr. Filibert, O.P., has reached nothing approaching that level of analysis and informed decision-making. The only similarity we could see here would be the intent to defy the Pope. Maybe this (a reference to defending mere personal preferences) is how Card. George meant it, in which case the error is his – color me shocked.

    I also thought Fr. F. seems to be heading down a very dangerous path when he says:

    The conference explained that the present sacramentary was widely accepted by both priests and faithful—a fact of great merit

    Would you say that makes him more of a Lutheran or a Presbyterian?

  47. Stephen Matthew says:

    Fr.,

    the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as published by the Byzantine Seminary Press on page 74 has:
    “Drink of this all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”
    The publication is copyright 2006, but seems to have been approved in revised form in 2001 with the original having been approved in 1964.
    http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/Chrysostom/C-DL_2006.pdf

    To add my own two cents, what Latin dictionary or grammar in common use offers “all” as a translation for “multis” ? Latin has a perfectly fine word for “all” even if ancient Hebrew or Aramaic did not. Further, I think modern audiences are at least as capable of being informed of shades of meaning of “many” as an ancient one was, does he think each generation is successively dimmer? Also, “all” is the narrowest, most restrictive translation possible, while “many” “the many” or “the multitude” allow the interpretive room needed in this case, and aren’t we supposed to prefer the sort of broad ways of looking at things? Finally I do agree that over time we will probably need to work on some of these translations a bit more, clearly something better can be done over time, yet this is a clear step in the right direction.

  48. slater says:

    America Magazine sows discord and rupture in the church. I wonder if between drinks at happy hour before dinner if the writers and editors consider what they are doing to souls in leading them into disobedience to and hatred for the Church and its true authority (an authority which America will never enjoy).

    It will be interesting how this will all play out when the 3rd Edition of the Missale Romanum is enacted in Advent 2011. Right now, it is curious how liberal catholics conveniently delete and change certain words at Mass (which, curiously enough, is employed universally at the exact same points in the Mass – i.e. 1) during the Gloria “Glory to God in the Highest and peace to (“God’s” rather than the correct “His” ) people on earth.” 2) During the Creed “for us (silence – as they disobediently drop “men”) and our salvation”; and 3) during the exchange immediately prior to the Eucharistic prayer’s preface “for our good and the good of all (“God’s” – rather than the correct lame-duck version “His” church.

    The disobedient/juvenile liberal parallel magisterium (that believes in Hell’s Bible rather than the content of the Holy Bible) will have to engage in houdini-like contortions in order to pull one over on the faithful when the 3rd Edition is used. Why? Because people will once again, Deo Gratias, be reading their own Roman Missal’s to make sure they are keeping pace with the improved text when it comes time for the faithful to respond.

    The parallel magisterium, who by the way, don’t have the integrity or courage to just be who they are – Protestants, will not obey, so they will, as a last ditch effort, make fools of themselves by trying to add/delete words from the 3rd Edition. Just watch. It will prove their disobedience to Holy Church.

  49. Solomons Chariots says:

    I also am saddened by what seems to me a departure from the usually high standards of Dominican scholarship. :(

    Here in New Zealand we seem to have come up against these objections much sooner (we are already using the new translation of the missal, although I’m not yet sure if it has been approved for use here by Rome).

    The objection that Christ died for all can be answered by saying that Christ died for the actual redemption for all, but that the efficacious salvation of all was not achieved. When Christ refers to the many, he is referring to those who take up the fruitfulness of the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins, which, while not necessarily excluding every soul, it seems quite likely that some souls will not take up this fruitfulness. :((

    I understand (though I am not any kind of scholar in ancient languages) that Christ and the Sacred Writers had available to them words that would have made clear that all were to be saved, and yet the Sacred Writers chose to use the Greek word “polloi”, which while indicating a multitude, doesn’t exclude all being saved, nor that some will be lost. Strangely enough the English “many” would also do this (I do think “the many” would be a more accurate translation in the common usage that we use, but I think “many” is a great improvement on the narrow “all”).

  50. jbpolhamus says:

    “jbpolhamus is on to something here.”

    Nathan! “You’re much to kind, man, like, you’re embarrassing me!” (Doing my best imitation of Garrett Morris imitating Sammy Davis Jr., circa 1977)

  51. Mrs. O says:

    I hear America Mag quoted a lot so I thank you for giving me a heads up as I know it is a matter of time before we “hear” this in a homily…….
    I like Fr. Fox’s explanation btw.

  52. lux_perpetua says:

    randii,

    i will pray for you. i, too, almost converted to EO because of the false sense of unity i saw there and just the paradox that you described.

    except that you couldn’t be more wrong. Aside from the nationalism and who recognizes whom that’s already been talked about, there are so many doctinally chaotic things going on that it’s impossible to get your footing. Greeks are heretics because some use the organ. except… maybe not. You’re not “really” Orthodox unless you use the old Calendar… except maybe it’s just good enough to celebrate pascha on the same day? you can abort [depending on who you ask] use birth control [except for when its a grave sin] and all good Orthodox observe the strict fasting of Lent, St. Philip’s Fast, the “summer Pascha” [except of course for those who teach it's only for the monastics].

    the Church has it’s problems. that’s for sure. people might dissent but at least you know where the pope stands and even if 99% of Catholics contracept, you know what the Church speaks as truth. in Orthodoxy you truly do not know at all

  53. Panterina says:

    We need one of those nice Church declarations like from the Councils of old:

    If anyone said that the new English translation for “pro multis” “run[s] contrary to the church’s constant tradition of the universal salvific will of Christ” – anathema sic.

    Loved this new post, Father! As a professional translator, I never get tired of these translation debates. :-)

    Besides, it gives all of us an excellent opportunity to catechize as to the true meaning of these translations. (You know, works of mercy–counsel the doubtful).

    That’s what the new evangelization is all about!

  54. robtbrown says:

    IMHO, good Fr Philibert makes the same mistake as Bp Trautman: His approach to propagating doctrine is so filled with condescension that it would make Marie Antoinette blush.

    It is laughable that he is comfortable with the use of “many” in the well known Mt-Mk text (to give His life as a ransom for many), but not during the consecration of the Eucharist.

    The use of “for many” involves, as said above, two different concepts: First, the universal salvific will of God–that He wants all to be saved. Second, that it is possible (indeed, likely) that all are not saved–further that the number would not only not be “all” or “many” but a “few” (oligoi).

    What could be a superb occasion for any halfway decent preacher to explain the teaching of the Church is rejected in favor of simpleton

  55. robtbrown says:

    BTW, this found on the Vatican site–the editio typica of Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

    Deinde calicem in manus vini sustulit eisque dixit: “Accipite et bibite omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum” (cfr Mc 14, 24; Lc 22, 20; 1 Cor 11, 25).

    The text is of course out of sync with the Vulgate but in sync with the various vernacular texts. So it would appear that instead of being the dog wagging, the editio typica has become the tail wagged.

  56. Tom in NY says:

    @robtbrown:
    The author of Ecclesia de Eucharistia may not be quoting his references correctly. The comparison to Mk. 14:24 is in my post above. The other two citations in Vg., via http://www.vatican.va are (Luke) “qui pro vobis funditur” and (1 Cor.)” pro vobis est.” Both use το υπερ υμων in the original, via http://www.katapi.org.uk.
    Salutationes omnibus

  57. Aaron B. says:

    Thirty-seven years? Why, that’s practically forever!! “Replacing” a word we’ve been using for 37 years is like stopping the fireworks on the 4th of July. Unpossible!

    Sarcasm aside, rarely do you see such an open example of how the Boomer modernists see their existence as all that’s ever mattered. If history didn’t start until 1960, then 37 years is indeed a very long time.

    I just can’t help but laugh at the massive overreaction to these translation fixes. (Makes me wonder what will happen when the Communion in the hand indult goes away. Worldwide apoplexy? Vapors?) The argument is always that the people either won’t understand or won’t stand for it. (As if that would be a reason not to fix it, even if it were true.) Yeah, the folks who didn’t leave over the abuse scandals, or bad catechesis, or having their churches closed, or bad folk music, etc., are suddenly going to stand up in their pews, say, “‘For many’? How dare you!” and stalk out. Uh huh.

  58. Hooksdoc says:

    3 years after the publication of The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St Pius V also published De Defectibus (About Defects), where he wrote, inter alia, ” Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the Act of Consecrating. Now the Words of Consecration which are the form of this Sacrament are, ….. ‘Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamentum qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum’.
    If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If on the other hand he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”
    The words “multis” and “all” in their respective languages do not mean the same thing (no matter which is more theologically correct). So, even if the change of language did not in itself involve a change of meaning (traduttore, traditore), then this ‘mistranslation’ does, and according to Pope St Pius V’s De Defectibus, the Sacrament is not valid; and even if the ‘mistranslation’ avoids that pitfall, ‘on the other hand’ the change of words (multis=many, omnibus=all) may mean that a grave sin in the Act of Consecrating has been committed; would this mean that God would not accept these Sacrifices, like Cain’s in Genesis, 4:5 and the Jews in Jeremiah 6:20?

  59. michaelh says:

    It’s okay, Fr. Philibert … the devil hates Latin, too.

  60. robtbrown says:

    Tom in NY says:

    @robtbrown:
    The author of Ecclesia de Eucharistia may not be quoting his references correctly. The comparison to Mk. 14:24 is in my post above. The other two citations in Vg., via http://www.vatican.va are (Luke) “qui pro vobis funditur” and (1 Cor.)” pro vobis est.” Both use ?? ???? ???? in the original, via http://www.katapi.org.uk.
    Salutationes omnibus

    I’m not saying that the consecration formulae in the Latin 1570/1970 Missals match perfectly either the NT or each other (the 1970 omits pro vobis in the first consecration). As I noted earlier, the editio typica of Ecc de Eu matches the Italian text (also found in the Italian mass) and likely was translated from it (which has sadly become the MO of documents). And so the Latin does not refer either to the Vulgate or to the Latin Novus Ordo: The editio typica of Ecc de E does not refer to the editio typica of the either the Vulgate or the Eucharistic liturgy.

    O Tempora. O mores.

  61. I wrote rather extensively about the Ecclesia de Eucharistia mess up. If you are interested, I could dig it up.

  62. robtbrown says:

    If you want, send it to me.

  63. robtbrown says:

    I just Googled it and found at least what was written here.

    At one time I thought the Latin version had been sabotaged, but that wasn’t necessary because it was merely a literal translation of what is found in the Italian liturgy (which, like English, had already been sabotaged). Then cfr was used to refer to the Scriptural texts.

    Eccl de Euchar:

    “Accipite et bibite omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum”

    Italian liturgy:

    Prendete, e bevetene tutti: questo è il calice del mio Sangue per la nuova ed eterna alleanza, versato per voi e per tutti in remissione dei peccati.

  64. James Joseph says:

    Mental note: Do not join the Southern Province.

    Why didn’t they have the holy Mass in the Dominican Rite?

  65. PhilipNeri says:

    As a member of the Southern Dominican Province, I take exception to the stereotyping of SDP friars as dissenting, etc. Like ALL O.P. provinces–including the East and West–, we have our more “creative” brothers and our more traditional brothers. We have our problems and so do they. As is typical of most men’s orders these days, there are generational differences btw our Baby Boomer friars and the younger guys. This is entirely predictable. There were great differences btw the friars who formed the Baby Boomers and the Baby Boomers themselves. Differences btw generations often show up in liturgical discussions. . .and discussions of the habit (but that’s another post!).

    If O.P. provinces can be said to have flavors, then I would characterize the SDP as decidedly “missionary.” We are preaching and teaching in fundamentalist Protestant territory w/o the cultural and financial benefits of a decades-long regional Catholic identity (e.g. NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc.). The “Spirit of Vatican Two” is probably more pronounced in the SDP than it is other provinces, but this has quite a lot to do with the date of our founding, 1980 and the friars who willingly took on the task of shaping a preaching ministry among the region’s many black, hispanic, and immigrant Catholics. It takes an adventurous spirit and a degree of personal independence to venture out into mission territory! IOW, they chose to leave the relative comforts of their dominant Catholic cultures and set out for the Protestant South. That sort of thing will change you.

    Anyway, I do not agree with my brother, fra. Paul’s assessment of the corrected translation–news that would not surprise him, btw. However, I know Paul to be a deeply faithful and dedicated preacher and teacher. I also know him to be a careful celebrant of the Church’s liturgies with a keen eye toward ensuring both the theological integrity and beauty of worship. I’ve attended many Masses where he was the celebrant, and I can’t think of any where he took it upon himself to improvise or innovate. He doesn’t deserve to be labeled a dissident. . .nor does our province.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  66. PhilipNeri says:

    James Joseph, there are many reasons why the O.P.’s no longer use the Dominican Rite on a regular basis. There are discussions going on right now among the friars to bring the rite back as a viable choice for us. Some Dominicans parishes in the West regularly celebrate the rite. NB. we are not forbidden to use the rite. . .but many of us simply don’t know it.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP