Fr. Z's Blog

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  polloí­ – “many”.

Prof. Jeremias prepared the article for the Greek word “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.