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

I found this important entry over at the blog of His Hermeueticalness, the great Fr. Finigan:

Over three years ago, I reported on a letter of the congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 17 October 2006, concerning the words pro multis ("for many") in the words for the consecration of the the chalice at Mass.

The letter states that there is no doubt about the validity of Masses in which the phrase "pro multis" is translated "for all" and that it is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women. However, it notes several arguments in favour of an accurate translation of "pro multis" and concludes that the phrase should be properly translated in the future.

The other day, a priest friend pointed out to me that there was a timespan included in the letter:

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.

Did you notice any catechesis on this matter in your country in the one or two years to October 2008? We are, of course, still waiting for the next translation of the Roman Missal into English, and are likely to be waiting for some time to come.

Is it is now time to start saying "for many"? There wasn’t any significant delay or insuperable problem when we were peremptorily told to say "for all" instead of "for all men."

 

Fr. Finigan does us a great service in bringing this point back to our minds.

Therefore, you priests who are reading this… don’t wait for conferences to make a move.  Start your catechesis.

Therefore, you bishops whe are reading this… don’t wait for conferences to make a move.  Start your catechesis.

Therefore, conferences of bishops…  what’s going on?  Should be be left to the abovementioned.

In the Catholic Review of the Archdiocese of Baltimore comes this CNS story.

On 22 October His Excellency Most Rev. Donald W. Trautman, Bishop of Erie, gave a talk at Catholic University of American in which he ran down the new translation of the Missale Romanum.

I would like a transcript or video of the whole talk.  I am sure the bishop’s remarks are interesting.

But let us work with what we have, with my emphases and comments.

Bishop criticizes ‘slavishly literal’ English translation of missal
By Mark Pattison
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON – Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., former chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgy committee, sharply criticized what he called the “slavishly literal” translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin.

He said the “sacred language” used by translators “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable” and could lead to a “pastoral disaster.”

“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Bishop Trautman said.  [So…each one of these words could perhaps be … what… explained?  Words such as "ineffable" and "incarnate" point to metaphysical realities that need explanation.  In centuries past we fought wars for this language.  "Consubstantial"?  This had to be explained in every century.  It took tears and even blood to craft this language and pass it down.  Maybe the problem is that priests and deacons need to study the Fathers…. knowing that bishops already have done so, of course.]

“The (Second Vatican Council’s) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,” [No, Your Excellency.  Sacrosanctum Concilium required the Latin language.   It permitted the vernacular in limited circumstances.  And are you, Your Excellency, seriously suggesting that in the sacred liturgy we should not use sacred language?] he added. “Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding?”  [Jesus never used the word "bishop" either.  And what of Matthew 13?  "The disciples approached him and said, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ He said to them in reply, ‘Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.’"]

Bishop Trautman made his remarks in an Oct. 22 lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington, as part of the Monsignor Frederick R. McManus Lecture Series. Monsignor McManus, a liturgist, served as a peritus, or expert, during Vatican II.

The Roman Missal has not yet been given final approval for use in the United States. The U.S. bishops were scheduled to vote on four items pertaining to the missal at their November general meeting in Baltimore. It is expected that the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments would give its “recognitio,” or approval, at some point following the U.S. bishops’ vote.  [So, this is part of Bp. Trautman’s ongoing campaign to move brother bishops to vote against the new translations.]

Bishop Trautman took note of sentences in the new missal that he said run 66, 70 and 83 words, declaring that they were “unproclaimable” by the speaker and “incomprehensible” to the hearer.

“American Catholics have every right to expect the translation of the new missal to follow the rules for English grammar. The prefaces of the new missal, however, violate English syntax in a most egregious way,” Bishop Trautman said, citing some examples in his remarks. [I would like to see them.  Sincerely.]

“The translators have slavishly transposed a Lain ‘qui’ clause into English without respecting English sentence word order,” he added. The bishop also pointed out subordinate clauses from the missal that are “represented as a sentence,” and sentences lacking a subject and predicate.

Bishop Trautman also questioned the use of “I believe” in the retranslated version of the Nicene Creed, “even though the original and official Nicene Creed promulgated by the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 said ‘we believe’ in both the Greek and Latin versions. [There is a difference between the Creed in the liturgy and  Creed in a Council.  Sure, they are close to each other.  They are both gatherings of statements of belief.  But Creeds coming from Councils or Synods had to be signed by members of divergent theological parties as a formula of unity.  That is why the conciliar or synodal Creeds start with "WE".  An ancient council is a different context than the Mass.  In the liturgy, individuals – together – make personal statements of faith, as they would at their own baptism.]

“Since this is a creedal prayer recited by the entire assembly in unison, the use of ‘we’ emphasized the unity of the assembly in praying this together as one body. Changing the plural form of ‘we’ to ‘I’ in the Nicene Creed goes against all ecumenical agreements regarding common prayer texts,” he said.  [Ummm… the Creed in the liturgy begins CREDO and not CREDIMUS.  Latin 101.  Furthermore, ecumenical agreements ring hollow if the translation is wrong.  Let’s have an ecumenical agreement about the correct translation!]

The bishop complained about the lack of “pastoral style” in the new translation. [I think he means "dumber".  Am I wrong?] The current wording in Eucharistic Prayer 3 asks God to “welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters,” which he considered “inspiring, hope-filled, consoling, memorable.”  [That’s his opinion.  Fine.]

The new translation asks God to “give kind admittance to your kingdom,” which Bishop Trautman called “a dull lackluster expression which reminds one of a ticket-taker at the door. ... The first text reflects a pleading, passionate heart and the latter text a formality – cold and insipid.”  [The Latin says: "in regnum tuum benignus admitte". I worked on this years ago in WDTPRS, when I wrote about the Eucharistic prayers.  My version was "kindly admit into your kingdom".  On this point, I therefore agree with Bp. Trautman – my "slavishly literal" version was better.  I posted mine seven years ago, btw.  But why should Bp. Trautman’s emotions about the present, lame-duck translation trump what the prayer really says?]

Bishop Trautman quoted the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said rites and texts “should radiate a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, free from useless repetition. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” [Let’s not forget how the lame-duck ICEL version isn’t  noble or simple.  It is just ignobly simplistic. Beyond simplistic, it is sanitized.  We need to be reminded – even through our sacral liturgical language – that religion is hard.  Furthermore, I think the new texts are within their comprehension, even if not immediate.  I think people are smarter than Bp. Trautman does.   Still, religion and religious concepts are hard.  They ought to challenge.]

“Why are these conciliar directives not implemented in the new missal?” he asked. [If Counciliar decrees are so important, why are you, Your Excellency, not therefore fighting for Gregorian chant in every parish?  What about the mandate of the same Sacrosanctum Concilium that pastors of souls should make sure their flocks can both sing and speak their responses in Latin?  Are we being a little selective in invoking the Council?]  They are “especially” relevant, Bishop Trautman added, to “the people of the third millennium: children, teenagers, adults, those with varying degrees of education, and those with English as a second language.”  [Because… what?  Those are new groups the Church?  Holy Church has never seen teens or people with varying degrees of education during the first two millennia?]

He acknowledged that “there are those who disagree with the way the liturgical reform of Vatican II was interpreted and implemented” and who maintained that “a reform of the reform” was necessary to stem what they saw as “diminishing religiosity (and) declining Mass attendance” tied to the Mass texts. ["those who disagree"...  I think he is talking about Pope Benedict and even about Pope John Paul II.]

But while “the Latin text is the official, authoritative text,” Bishop Trautman said, “the Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and world view.”  [The Latin text of the Missale Romanum is not inspired in the way Holy Scripture is inspired.  Granted. But it is theological locus and is entirely under the aegis of the Vicar of Christ.  But if we stipulate that the Latin text is not inspired, does that mean that the vernacular text can be changed in pretty much any way the winds of change suggest?  That seems to be what Bp. Trautman is arguing.]

As a consequence, “a major and radical change” and “a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts” [It erupts now because it has been ignored for decades.] in the new missal during the words of consecration, which say that the blood of Christ “will be poured out for you and for many,” instead of “for all,” as is currently the practice.

“For whom did Jesus not die?” Bishop Trautman asked. “In 1974 the Holy See itself had approved our present words of institution (consecration) as an accurate, orthodox translation of the Latin phrase ‘pro multis,’“ he added. “It is a doctrine of our Catholic faith that Jesus died on the cross for all people.”  [And now the Vicar of Christ has made the determination that the words will be, in every language, "for many".  Why, Your Excellency, can’t Pope Benedict make this determination?  Are you suggesting that he didn’t know what he was doing?  Furthermore, the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent has a specific paragraph about why we do not, cannot, say "for all".  Moreover, it is also a doctrine of our faith that not all will actually be saved.  The Church says "pro multis" – for good reason – and all the necessary explanations have been issued repeatedly.]

Bishop Trautman took issue with a 2006 letter to bishops by Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, then head of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, which said that “salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation.”

“I respond that Jesus died even for those who reject his grace. He died for all,” Bishop Trautman said.  [This is old stuff now.  It is settled and the explanations have been given.  The Lord  without question died for all, but not all will be saved.  Furthermore, "pro multis" does not, cannot, mean "for all".  That’s just plain wrong and embarrasing.]

“Why do we now have a reversal? The Aramaic and Latin texts have not changed. [LOL!] The scriptural arguments have not changed, but the insistence on literal translation has changed.”  [RIGHT!  The Latin text did not change.  The Latin text says "pro multis".  And the Aramaic?  Show us, Your Excellency, the Aramaic text of the Lord’s words.  This reference to the Aramaic is pure speculation based on a philological fan dance performed by a Lutheran Scripture scholar who argued that the Greek Scriptures about the Last Supper were wrong and that he knew better.  I have written on this at length.  Pope Benedict is right about this: the Latin text constitutes its own theological locus and it must be respected as such.  Enough.]

Bishop Trautman hearkened back to Monsignor McManus, whom he called “an apostle of the liturgical renewal.”

“If Monsignor McManus were with us today, he would call us to fidelity to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and encourage us to produce a translation of the missal that is accurate, inspiring, referent, proclaimable, understandable, pastoral in every sense – a text that raises our minds and hearts to God.”

Religion is not easy or self-evident.

That’s why we have the preaching office. Have we forgotten that? 

We have to have elevated language for that which is hard. 

Words such as "ineffable" point to the nature of a mystery. 

If a priest, deacon, or lay catechist could spend two minutes to explain what the word "ineffable" means that would be two minutes well spent on the people of God. 

Too much to ask?

And if those priests, or deacons, or lay catechists, or the people in the pews don’t like what they hear about "ineffable" or "consubstantial", there are loads of churches out there that don’t have complicated theology as part of their heritage. 

There is plenty of Salvation Army theology out there.  It isn’t hard to find. 

The Orthodox are not dumbing down their liturgy.  Traditional Catholics aren’t seeking more banal experiences.  Anglicans fought pitched battles over liturgical language. 

Let us for a moment review the Missa Trautmanensis which came up on the blog a few years ago:

Priest: Uhm, like, hey guys, we need to, you know, get started, so let’s do the cross thingy.  OK, so now we’re gonna say sorry and stuff to God because, you know
what? Nobody’s perfect.
All: I’m sorry if anything I did was offensive. I didn’t mean to hurt anyone. My bad.
Priest: Ok, let’s, like, talk to God now and listen to the stories in the book.
Lector: [lector reads the day’s selection] This is from that book from God.
All: Thanks God.
Cantor: Now you all are gonna repeat after me, like row row row your boat and I’ll sing some stuff from the book.
Priest: Uhm, This next part is really important so let’s everybody stand up and do the cross thingy on our heads, mouths and chest.
Hey, peace y’all.
All: Right back atcha.
[the priest reads the Gospel of the day]
Priest: Jesus did this.
All: Thanks Jesus.
Priest: [gives pastoral, easily comprehensible homily]
Priest: Hey guys, now let’s say that long thing that talks about what we think about and stuff.
All: We like God.  God is cool and really nice because He made me and this whole world – which by the way – we are totally polluting and it’s getting hot.  Jesus was born in a little barn and every Christmas we have a play during church but then he died. But you know what? He loves me and wants me to be happy.  There’s this spirit that talks to us in a book and he makes things live.  I like my church because everyone here is so nice and the priest is nice and we sing nice songs about nice stuff and later when we get old and icky, after we die, we all get to go to heaven with Jesus. He’s really cool by the way. Amen.
Priest: Now let’s pray for a bunch of stuff.
[intentions are prayed]
Priest: hey you guys in the back? Can y’all carry that basket and pitcher up here? That’d help a lot. Thanks.
Priest: Hey y’all, be peaceful and stuff.
All: You too.
Priest: Let’s pray to God and, you know.
All: yeah, that’d be nice.
Priest: You know what? Angels and stuff sing to God so let’s sing along with them.
All: Hey God. 
You are way bigger than us.
You make the world happy.
We love you big guy.
YAY!
Jesus liked you and he was cool.
YAY!
Priest: A long time ago, at dinner, Jesus gave His friend’s some bread and wine and stuff.
Because Jesus likes us, He wants us to have bread and wine too.
God wants us to have this snack also.
And you know what?
We really like snacks so let’s tell God and Jesus and that Spirit gal thanks.
All: Yeah…Thanks.
[all present themselves for communion]
Priest: (holding out a wicker basket) Uhm, like, here’s some bread for you from God.
Recipient: Yum, that’s good and nutty, is it whole grain by the way? I like it. Now where’s that dude with the vino?

Nothing about religion is easy or self-evident.

That’s why we have the preaching office or … have we forgotten that? 

Thank heaven this last ditch effort is too late.  

The fight over the liturgical translation is effectively over.

From a reader:

I’ve not written to you before, but I’m really looking for some help here.  I am from England.  I go to the Traditional Mass, which I love, at the London Oratory every Saturday and Sunday, and the Latin Novus Ordo in the week, when possible, also at the Oratory.  Very occasionally, when I am away from home, I attend the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.  I recently got a book by Father Paul L Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L (Cand) called "The Suicide of altering the Faith in the Liturgy".  I was very disturbed when I read it.  Trying to find some further advice/guidance, I found your four articles on the ‘Pro Multis’ issue, http://wdtprs.com/blog/category/wdtprs/pro-multis which I read.  Fr Kramer’s book is very worrying to say the least [I think not.]  . . . in light of what you have written in your four articles, what do you make of this paragraph from the book?
 
"It needs to be emphasised that a Mass which is probably invalid or even probably valid, even if there is a relatively high probability of validity, is totally and gravely illicit, since the Church’s moral doctrine, set forth by Pope Innocent XI (see Footnote) clearly forbids probably valid sacraments.  Thus, it is gravely sinful (in the objective moral order) for anyone to celebrate or attend Mass when the vernacular expression "for all" is used in the consecration of the chalice, since that formula of consecration is not certainly valid . . . "
 
Footnote:- "In conferring the sacraments, as also in the consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course.  The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1670-1676)" – Fr Henry Davis, S.J. Moral and Pastoral Theology, v.3, p27.
 
I would be grateful for some advice.  I know that you say that the term "For All" doesn’t invalidate the Mass, but I wondered what you made of the above quotation.  Some friends of mine advise that I should go to the SSPX . . . I don’t know what to do sometimes.

What do I make of the quotation?  I suggest that Fr. Kramer has very little standing to make any such interpretation.

Paul VI and John Paul II were Popes.  They were no less Popes than Innocent XI.  They promulgated the post-Conciliar editions of the Missal.  Popes don’t give Holy Church Missals with texts for invalid Masses. You might not like what they promulgated in every respect, but the Masses are not invalid.  You might think that the texts of the previous Missal were superior, but the newer texts are not invalid.

Fr. Kramer’s insinuations were imprudent.

People can argue about whether or not the texts of the Novus Ordo rite of Mass are good, or whether they convey a somewhat different theology than that of the older, pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum.  People can like or not like, for various reasons, the Novus Ordo.  But it is wrong to say that Mass with the post-Conciliar editions is invalid.  To do so implies that you think your own authority is above that of the Vicar of Christ. 

I will be delighted with the new translation of the Novus Ordo is released, with its correct rendering of pro multis, and this tired controversy is put to rest.

Our guest today is the fictional don Camillo Tarocci, (+ A.D. ... ?) parish priest of "The Little World" created by Giovanni Guareschi.

I begin a new project, namely, to read stories from The Little World of Don Camillo.  These delightful pieces set in post-war Nothern Italy blend brilliant insight into the human condition with solid applied Catholic Faith.  Today we hear three tales:

The Little World
A Confession
A Baptism.

Then I tackle some of your voicemail. 

A listener askes advice on what arguments people might present to a pastor of a parish to obtain celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass according to Summorum Pontificum.  I give three possible points.

Another fellow asked about the whole "pro multis" issue and I give a fairly detail response, though not exhaustine.  For that you need the articles I wrote for The Wanderer and which are here on the blog.

http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_07_25.mp3

The iTunes feed is working again… mysteriously.  Check it out!

Some of the last offerings (check out the PODCAzT PAGE):

065 08-07-19 St. Ambrose “On mysteries”; Interview: Fr. Robert Pasley
064 08-07-15 Bonaventure on Christ “the door”; Interview – Fr. Timothy Finigan
063 08-07-12 Interview: Fr. Justin Nolan, FSSP; consecrated hands, Holy Communion and the Rite of Baptism
062 08-06-26 Interviews with and by Fr. Z; What has Bp. Fellay really said?
061 08-05-17 Pope Leo I on a post-Pentecost weekday; Fr. Z rambles not quite aimlessly for a while
060 08-05-16 Pentecost customs; St. Ambrose on the dew of the Holy Spirit
059 08-05-15 Leo the Great on Pentecost fasting; Benedict XVI’s sermon for Pentecost Sunday
058 08-05-14 Ember Days; Chrysostom on St. Matthias; Prayer to the Holy Spirit
057 08-05-13 John Paul II on the unforgivable sin; Our Lady of Fatima and the vision of Hell
056 08-05-12 Octaves – Fr. Z rants & Augustine on Pentecost
055 08-05-03 Tertullian, again; Fr. Rutler and Fr. Z on Archbp. Marini’s book
054 08-04-29 Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion; St. Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius

WDTPRS has soldiered for years on the side of truth and beauty in liturgical translation.  We played a not insignificant role in process whereby the accurate translation of "pro multis" in the consecration of the Precious Blood went up the ladder for the Pope’s signature.  It is now a done deal: all vernacular versions must use some form of "for many" to translation "pro multis".

With a tip of the biretta to SP   o{]:¬)    I present a story from ADISTA (my translation, emphases and comments).

"PRO MULTIS" MEANS "FOR ALL".  IN GERMANY TWO PRESBYTERAL COUNCILS REFUSE THE VATICAN TRANSLATION
(Ludovia Eugenio)

ROTTENBURG-ADISTA The voting was carried out in a democratic way and gave a clear verdict: in the litugical formula for transubstantiation: they will continue to translate the Latin formula pro multis with the expression "for all", and not with "for many" as desired by the Pope.  The "disobedience" to the Vatican prescription to change the translation, desired by Benedict XVI and "commissioned" by him from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments of Card. Francis Arinze, was – as the German press reports it these days – on the part of two German diocesan presbyteral councils, that of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, and of Augsburg.  Reacting to the letter which Arinze sent last October to the presidents of national episcopal conferences about this question, the Presbyteral Council of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, during a meeting which took place on 25 April last, voted in favor of maintaining the inclusive translation "for all", judging that of the Vatican, "for many", ambiguous "today being as it is". [Doesn’t this sound like the argument of H.E. Donald W. Trautman?]  "The promise of God’s salvation," according to the press release sent out by the same presbyteral council – applies to all persons.  This truth of faith is expressed in the clearest way in the formula "for all" in the prayer".  "The correct understanding" of the text does not depend on comments about it, [Again, this is the Trautmaniac line: a prayer must be easily and immediately understandable.  Thus, language must be closer to the lowest common denominator, rather than the higher, and translation must be changed often as the language shifts.  The problem is, of course, that you really can’t say anything meaningful that way.] the religious of Rottenburg affirmed: the original biblical text affirms that Christ died for all, and every man can and must decide to accept Jesus’ offer of salvation.  [A red herring: Liturgical translation is not equivalent to biblical translation.  The liturgical texts now constitute their own source and must be respected as such.  Liturgical translation focuses on what the pages of the Missale say, not the Bible, even when the liturgical text is rooted in Scripture.  This is especially important with even in the Catechism of the Council of Trent there was a specific paragraph about the "for all" question.]

A month before, the Presbyteral  Council of Augsburg expressed the same choice.  The diocesan presbyteral council asked Bishop Walter Mixa, to "promote with the Vatican and the German Episcopal Conference" the possiblity of continuing the translate the expression in the Missale Romanum "pro multis" with "for all".  Immediately after the vote, Fr. Florian Schuller, President of the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, addressed the presbyteral council, underscoring that the history of the central texts of the liturgy are "profoundly written in the conscience" and that a change such as that prescribed by Rome risks provoking polarizations and protests at the parish level: "That all priests all of a sudden go from ‘for all’ to ‘for many’ is, based on the experience of the last decades, rather unlikely".  [Since when have guys like this been worried about overnight changes that affect what people feel deeply?]

 

When I wrote my WDTPRS articles on the Roman Canon, I had to dig deeply into the pro multis question.  I did four articles on the formula of consecration of the Precious Blood.

Here is an excerpt from one of those articles:

His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger confronts this in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003).   His Eminence 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).

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

Translation of the Missale Romanum is not translation of Sacred Scriptures.  The Missale constitutes its own source and must be respected as such.

 

Furthermore, this is a done deal.  His Holiness has made his decision.

 

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

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

 

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

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more. 

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

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

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

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Jeremias prepared the article for the Greek word “<" alt="" border="0" />—[if gte mso 9]> < ![endif]-->polloí” (“many”) for the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament in 1959 (vol. VI, 540.36-545.25 also in English translation as Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1968, pp. 536 ff). He says in this article, “our main concern will be with the significance of the saying that Jesus dies for many” (English version p. 536 emphasis mine). He asks the right question about the verses in which polloí­ is used in reference to Jesus’ saving work:

“The question raised by these verses is whether polloí­ is understood exclusively in Greek fashion (many, but not all) or inclusively in the sense that “many” can have in Semitic (the totality which embraces many individuals). In other words, does the vicarious work of Jesus avail only for the redeemed community or does He die for all without limitation?” (p. 543).

The Notitiae paragraph I quote above, written in 1970 and filtered with Italian and Latin, still uses Jeremias’ same vocabulary (“without limitation”).

Looking at the same verses mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent Jeremias, clearly having an axe to grind against someone, says of the “exclusive” use of polloí­:

“This is the question whether the broad interpretation of polloí­ corresponds to the original sense of Mk. 10:45; 14:24 or whether we have here a secondary and more comprehensive understanding designed to avoid the offence of a restriction of the scope of the atoning work of Jesus to ‘many’” (pp. 543-44).

The foundation for our present translation was Jeremias’ rereading of Scripture so as to avoid the offense in Catholic doctrine. Also, since Catholics know what the Church teaches, it will be okay adopt “for all”. We will have to continue with Jeremias’ argument next week. And yes, readers, the WDTPRS version of the consecration of the chalice will be coming soon.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 10: “Simili modo” part 3

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

PART 3 of a 4 part article on the words of consecration of the Precious Blood, focusing on the pro multis issue.

We have in this Odyssey seen the vocabulary, the Church’s teaching from the Catechism of the Council of Trent on the universality of value of Christ’s Sacrifice while the fruits will be applied “to many”. We saw the defense of the reason-defying translation “for all” from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (SCDW) and from ICEL in 1970. We must now continue with our close look at the keystone for the reasoning behind this decision to make pro multis mean “for all” rather than “for many”: the scholarship of the great Lutheran Scripture exegete Joachim Jeremias.

Prof. Jeremias provided the key article in an important dictionary of the Bible in the 1950’s which was translated into English in the 1960’s (Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament in 1959, vol. VI, 540.36-545.25 also in English translation as Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1968, pp. 536 ff). He examined the Greek word polloí (“many”) which Scripture says Jesus said at the Last Supper. Not distinguishing between the value and the application of Its fruits, Jeremias states in the article openly that the idea of any “exclusive” concept attached to Jesus’ saving work is an “offense”. He then designs an understanding of polloí without this “offense” by means of a convoluted rereading of the relevant verses. Jeremias basically makes a conjecture about what Jesus really said in Aramaic and argues that Scripture’s polloí (“many”) is wrong. We continue now in with what we started last week.

Jeremias begins to design his inclusive understanding in this important research dictionary (which the SCDW and ICEL simply adopted) saying there is no correspondence between Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek vocabulary for “all”: “This inclusive use is due to the fact that Heb. and Aram. have no word for “all”” (p. 536). He admits there is the Hebrew/Aramaic kol, kola, which means “all”, but, according to Jeremias, they don’t mean “all”, they mean rather “the totality”: “The totality is in view from the very first, whereas “all” expresses the sum as well as the totality” (p. 536, n. 4). I am not sure what that means. Apparently “all” of something is more than the “totality” of something. Contrasting polloí with pántes (“all”) Jeremias writes, “In Greek, polloí is differentiated from pántes ((h)óloi) by the fact that it is the antonym of a minority” (p. 536 – emphasis added). So far so good: “many” can be a “majority” but not “all”. Jeremias states that the Hebrew/Aramaic words mean “the many who cannot be counted … the great multitude”. The word Jeremias thinks Jesus might have said in Aramaic means a group so inclusive as to mean “all”.

Jeremias then rereads the relevant Bible verses through the lens of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Remember Zerwick in his article for Notitiae we saw last week? This is where Zerwick got his material. According to Jeremias the Hebrew word corresponding to Greek polloí, “is taken to refer to the whole community, comprised of many members, which has fallen under the judgment of God.” Jeremias then offers the amazing proclamation: “There is no support for the idea that Jesus interpreted Is. 53 any differently” (p. 545 – emphasis added). You will observe, of course, that there isn’t any evidence to the contrary either. Conclusion: in Greek Jesus says “many” but He really meant to say “all”. Using impressive philological gymnastics Jeremias effectively argues that Scripture’s polloí is wrong: therefore the Scripture we have is wrong in the account of the Last Supper. But, if that is true then the Church’s dogma has also been wrong. Mass is wrong because of its pro multis. Jeremias figured out what the Catholic Church (purposely?) missed all these centuries. You will reasonably ask why the authors of the Gospels and the letters of Paul didn’t know any of this when they, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, made the “mistake” of writing polloí in Greek instead of pántes. How did St. Jerome miss this when he wrote pro multis? Did the Fathers lie for centuries or simply blow it when considering the words of Jesus at the Last Supper?

Let us sum up a little. Probably motivated in large part by ecumenical zeal, under the pressure of the deeply problematic radically historical-critical Scripture scholarship which gripped the Church like a vice in those years, ICEL (like the SCDW before them) eagerly embraced the Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias’ work regarding polloí. ICEL and the SCDW then made a Latin word mean something it has never meant in the history of that language because a Greek word had been made by Jeremias to mean something it had never meant before. All this was based on Jeremias’ guess about a word Jesus might have said in yet another language read through a lens designed correct the “offense” to Protestants implicit in the Church’s consecration formula and expressed teaching about the same. ICEL set aside the probability that Evangelists and Paul knew what they were doing and meant what they wrote, with the Holy Spirit’s help, because it expressed the truth as they saw it. Ditto the Fathers of the Church.

It is possible to argue that the English translation, reflecting an ecumenical vision prevalent at the time, was created to cover over the “offense” some Protestants might hear in the Catholic Church’s “inclusive” teaching about the value and intention of Jesus’ Sacrifice which had been coupled by the ancient Church to the “exclusive” teaching about its fruits which are all not equally accepted by fallen humans. Some non-Catholics claim that the Church believes that Jesus died only for “many” and not for all. The Church does not teach that. Let us be clear about the other side too. Some extremists (yes, extremists) say that “for all” introduces to the Mass a heresy that makes the English formula of consecration in the Mass invalid. They are wrong, but their instincts are good. Their concern must be taken seriously if not their conclusion.

So, there are those who oppose “for all” saying that it is heresy, those who defend it as only a change of emphasis and not of doctrine. They must both be taken seriously in their claims. But I cannot agree with them either.

I think that ICEL’s translation obscured, not denied, the clarity of the Church’s perennial doctrine, which was not exclusive in any unjust, uncharitable, unreasonable, or offensive way. The change in emphasis that is/was needed is in catechism, instruction, and preaching, not in the consecration formula itself, which should reflect more clearly the Church’s teaching on the value and the fruits of Christ’s Sacrifice.

Since all sorts of folks of the rather “traditionalist” stripe have been yelping “SEE! We told you so all along!”, I will state this clearly just in case they missed my point: “For all” in English doesn’t invalidate the consecration and it is not “heresy”.

I think “for all” changes the Church’s clarity.I think “for all” is nebulous

There are two camps formed to do war over this issue, but in between there are the vast majority who never really think about any of this but simply go to Church and have heard this translation for decades. They have slowly been formed by the fuzziness of the phrase “for all” into thinking that all are in fact saved, that everyone automatically goes to heaven. Never mind that they don’t think about those in purgatory, they don’t believe that hell exists (except maybe for bad men like Hitler, but hardly anyone else). In the great dark vacuum of catechesis and preaching of the basics, people were formed just as you might expect them to be according to the absolutely correct principle of lex orandi lex credendi: how you pray has a reciprocal relationship with what you believe.

Was this obscuring compromise worth it for ecumenical reasons? I have no idea and I will leave that to my betters. However, to my mind this is an age when we need greater clarity not more nuances, a stronger sense of our Catholic faith and not something fuzzy. I do not think that ecumenical dialogue, as desirable as it can be when it is authentic, benefits from Catholics blurring their own teaching about how the fruits of the Lord Jesus’ Sacrifice will only be accepted by many even though He gave Himself up for all. By saying “for many” the Church does not teach that God cannot and does not save non-Catholics through the merits of the Lord’s Sacrifice! But, even if the number of the many who accept the fruits is beyond the reckoning of man, it is not going to be the “totality”, all of mankind, everyone who ever lived. If counting the elect is impossible for us, that mysterious number will not be beyond God who knew it before Creation. The Church taught clearly what this meant in a time of great upheaval and theological revolution. This teaching has been formally upheld in recent years. It is not in our best interests as a “Church in the modern world” to leave “for all” as the translation for pro multis. We must return to “for many” and then teach, teach, teach…and embrace in charitable dialog all who will wonder what we mean or will seek to say we are wrong.

On 20 February the Holy Father offered to bishops from France (where the Church and faithful are drowning in nuance and unbridled secularization) the following remarks about

“…the catechetical and evangelizing nature of liturgy, which must be understood as a path to holiness, the inner strength of the apostolic dynamism and missionary nature of the Church. … Pastors must take ever greater care, with the collaboration of the laity, in the preparation of Sunday liturgy, paying special attention to the rite and beauty of the celebration. … In their homilies, priests must take care to teach the faithful about the doctrinal and scriptural foundations of the faith. I again strongly ask all the faithful to base their spiritual experience and their mission in the Eucharist, around the bishop, minister and guarantor of communion in the diocesan Church, for ‘where the bishop is, there is the Church’.”

I submit the following for you readers and for all others who are involved in this vital mandate of preparing translations for the sake of “the catechetical and evangelizing nature of liturgy”:

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
After the supper was concluded, in a similar way taking into His holy and venerable hands also this noble chalice, in like manner giving thanks to You He blessed and He gave it to His disciples, saying: All of you receive and drink from this: for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out abundantly on your behalf and on the behalf of multitudes for the remission of sins. Do this for my remembrance.

Please note that while in Polish you hear “za wielu” or “for many”, in Italian we have “per tutti”, in German “für alle”, in Spanish “por todos” (meaning “for all”), and in Mandarin Chinese we say “zhòng rén” which is “for the multitudes i.e., everybody”. French remarkably has “pour la multitude”.

Latin says “for many” and this is the language that counts for the Latin Rite. I think that “on behalf of/for (the) multitudes” strikes the proper balance of Christ’s Sacrifice which was unquestionably “for all” with the Church’s authentic teaching that “many” (without further specification) will accept the fruits of Christ’s Sacrifice. “Multitudes” lends an aspect to pro multis which is certainly true: the number of the saved will be vast, no matter how many or how few are sadly lost.

Next week, I will return to this thorny problem bringing in some recent comments about the pro multis issue by His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? The Roman Canon / 1st Eucharistic Prayer – 12: “Simili modo” part 4

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2004

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

Last week, WDTPRS said we must move away from “for all” as a translation of pro multis. It is not heresy (as some claim), but it makes the Church’s teaching fuzzy for those who hear it if they are not fully catechized. The translation “for all” might fly if the faithful were well-instructed, but they sadly are not. Therefore, the nebulous sound of “for all” gives people an impression very different from what the Church teaches about the application of the fruits of the Sacrifice Christ made for all. We need a phrase which gives the impression of vast numbers of the saved while leaving it clear that not all are certainly going to be saved. I chose “for/on behalf of multitudes”.

I return now to a point I made before. Translations of the Mass of the Latin Rite are to be made from the Missale Romanum which is in Latin. The Missale Romanum is in Latin – not Greek – not Aramaic. Scripture has immense importance in preparing translations of Mass texts, but we are not Protestants: Scripture is not the only source of revelation Catholics refer to. The Church made the decision to join different Biblical accounts of the Last Supper together and use specific carefully considered language for the consecration. A Council explained the theology clearly and explicitly on this very point. Those facts have weight.

His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger confronts this in God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life (Ignatius Press, 2003). His Eminence 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”.

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

The Church today, as in every age, will have new insights into the meaning of the Lord Jesus’ Sacrifice. New insights must be in harmony with and deepen the previously defined and clear teachings in our Tradition and Magisterium, not confuse them. Look at it this way: if the Pope or a new Council chose to explain a new emphasis using a document of sufficient weight and authority, and if the Holy See then changed the Latin of the Missale Romanum to say “pro vobis et pro universis”, then there would be a linguistic justification for saying “for all” as an accurate translation of the Missale Romanum. But the Church cannot change the Latin from pro multis to pro universis. That would explicitly contradict the Church’s teaching as expressed in Latin by the Council of Trent (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, 4). Such a change would contradict doctrine and not simply change emphasis about an aspect of that doctrine. Clear English must reflect the clarity of the Latin. What to do?

Dear readers, the last few weeks have been ponderous. But this is a matter of great concern for every one who has ever or will ever warm a pew in the coming decades. What will ICEL and the Holy See choose this time? “For many… for all”? The Congregation for Divine Worship’s document Liturgiam authenticam (LA) established norms for translations. From LA the working guidelines, the ratio translationis was developed. The ratio translationis says:

“Given the long history of the Roman Rite which developed in part around certain divisions in the practice of the faith, seen most acutely in liturgical and credal language, translators must show great care in expressing the mysteries of the faith as understood in the Catholic tradition. As a result, traditional Catholic expression is not ordinarily rendered through language which belongs to other faith communities.”

“For many” reflects defined Catholic doctrine. “For all” reflects the concerns of “other faith communities”. However, in working draft of the English language translation now in preparation in a footnote we find:

“The translation of pro multis as ‘for all’ has been retained in the proposed text as a rendering of the original biblical text, even though it does not appear to be a literal translation.”

Now you have the background for the controversy. When it comes up in the press, and it will, you will know what is going on. In WDTPRS for the Simili modo section of the Roman Canon we examined with four week’s worth of columns the problems in the English translation of the consecration of the chalice involved with the word “take” and also at length the words “for all”. It is time to get this information into more people’s hands. Also, since these articles are designed to promote greater love through greater knowledge of our prayers of the Mass, I have aspired to change forever the way you hear the consecration formula. Fuzzy as it may be the phrase “for all” does not invalidate the Mass. Moreover, even if that less than clear translation is maintained in the future, you will now always be capable of hearing it in the right way.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
After the supper was concluded, in a similar way taking into His holy and venerable hands also this noble chalice, in like manner giving thanks to You He blessed and He gave it to His disciples, saying: All of you receive and drink from this: for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out abundantly on your behalf and on the behalf of multitudes for the remission of sins. Do this for my remembrance.

Since another blog has decided (perhaps imprudently) to publish something on it, and since it is already commented on by participants in this blog (for good or ill), here goes.

Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, "for many", in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.

Ever since Pope Paul VI, the Pontiff reserves to himself the approval of all sacramental forms in vernacular versions. Only Pope Benedict can make this decision.

WDTPRS has been hammering this for years, working as a lobby precisely for this, which is the single most important translation issue that had to be resolved. The WDTPRS articles have been used by members of the Vox Clara Committee, bandied about in Congregations, and even read by the Holy Father before his election. In the articles I urged readers to write respectful and brief letters about this issue to members of the Committee and prefects of Congregations. They did and I saw copies of their letters and the nice responses they received in return. The articles kept supplying ammunition during the war over the translation.

I see this as a real benchmark. Pope Benedict acts decisively once he has thought something through. He is interested in a new kind of dialogue, even ecumenical dialogue, based on accurate and forthright expressions of what we believe as a Church. The choice to say "for many" rather than "for all" indicates a serious shift of approach on many levels. It seems to me that the days of overly careful political correctness are done, at least in some spheres of the Church’s activity.

There may be some who do not find this news to be that big a thing. They might suggest that it does nothing for traditionalists who don’t want Mass in the vernacular anyway. To them I would say, first, that what is good for the whole Church is good for them. Holy Church is not to be reduced to the traditionalist minority, as important as it is in some respects. Clearly the traditionalists are not in the majority in the Church today. Thus, vernacular translations impact them more than they might think. The English language clearly dominates the world today. Since liturgical translations in other languages are undergoing revisions, they will be required to follow suit. Also, it is a unmistakable sign both that His Holiness is picking up speed in his work and that he is not content to maintain the status quo. He is making decisions with confidence.

It is necessary to continue with prayers for the Holy Father and with raising thanks to God for this important move on his part. We all know that it ain’t over ‘till it’s over. When I see some instrument of promulgation and the Holy Father’s signature, I will finally relax. Nevertheless I am very happy about this news.