There are several ways you can order Jimmy Akin's best-selling new book, Mass Revision: How the Liturgy Is Changing and What It Means for You. You can:
- Order a paperback copy 24-hours a day from the Catholic Answers online store by clicking here.
- Order a paperback copy directly from Catholic Answers by calling toll-free, 888-291-8000 (12-7:45 Eastern, 9-4:45 Pacific).
- Download it in under a minute for your Kindle by clicking here.
- Download it in under a minute for your Nook by clicking here.
- Order a paperback copy from online retailers such as Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com (coming soon).
“For many” is how it was translated in my old Latin-English missal which I’ve had since I was a kid, and it was never a problem for people.
+JMJ+ Interesting. I had always thought that the “all” had been inserted so as to “include” everyone, even non-Catholics. I thought it was just another form of political correctness. Nice to hear the real reason.
..to make the Consecration valid, only kidding.
Although “for many” is literally closer to the gospel texts than “for all” it will need explanation to avoid misunderstanding.
“Cup” seems closer to the original Greek “poterion” than “chalice” in the gospel narratives according to this Greek concordance. My Greek is even more limited than my Latin, so I invite correction.
“Chalice” seems to be derived from the Latin Vulgate translation – which Latin versions of the Mass would naturally have tended to follow.
I think the real reason for this change is not a greater fidelity to the original languages of the bible, or an attempt as greater formality, but an attempt to clone the Latin Mass as literally as possible – without inculturation.
This is less the “English Mass”, it is more the “Latin Mass (rendered literally) in English”.
I’m just glad that the Holy Father made these changes. I would hope that there will be more to come. This has been needed since Vatican II because of so many abuses–which still continue and have worsened since then. God bless the Holy Father!
The explanation for the substitution of the word “all” with “many” appears, by my lights, to be weak. Absent a dogmatic definition for each verse in which the word “many” appears, it introduces a very unstable element into Christ’s teaching. For instance, just a couple of chapters before Christ’s consecration, He says: “And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many. And because iniquity has abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.” (Matt 24:11-12) If the word “many” must now be taken to mean “all,” then it appears that Christ is referring to a universal apostacy with no remnant Church possible (the gates of Hell prevail). This cannot be the case, since it violates a core Teaching. Still, apologetics to those outside the Church has to appeal to something other than what looks like after-the-fact picking and choosing about what Christ really meant.
I think what is required specifically is some sort of rule wherein the way the text or phrase is structured points to the use of the idiom, whereby the text is not meant to be taken literally. As soon as Scriptural interpretation on this point is clarified, we can escape the accusation that we are merely throwing open the doors to the interpretational cafeteria merely because it happens to be convenient.
The point isn’t what we think is a better translation. It’s that the Latin speakers back when thought that “calix” was a better translation of “poterion” — or of the original story they heard direct from Peter and others. So why should we second-guess what has always been our way to say it?
If it helps, pretty much all the Jewish sabbath-cups of the era, and all the early Christian stuff we know of, are best described as “chalices”.
And most people think of “cup” as a teacup or a sippy cup. Not exactly what Jesus was using.
One of the ways this new translation is claimed to be superior is its allegedly being closer to the scriptures.
“Poterion” “cup” is in the gospels and St Paul. Which are based on the direct and indirect testimony of the Apostles – including St Peter himself ie the original story. I’m not the one doing the second guessing.
According to my limited Greek, there is a Greek word for chalice “kalyx”, from which the Latin “calix” is derived. The gospel writers (based on their Apostolic witnesses) could have used the word “kalyx” instead of “poterion” but they did not. The obvious explanation is that, from the earliest times, it was understood that Our Lord used a “poterion” rather than a “kalyx”.
AFAIK there was a certain diversity amongst Jews in the Second Temple period in how they celebrated the Passover (including the exact date). It seems to me an assumption/interpretation that Jesus used a “chalice” rather than a “cup” – especially when the scriptural witnesses say “cup” rather than “chalice”.
I would be interested in the source for saying “pretty much all the Jewish sabbath-cups of the era … are best described as “chalices””.
The 4th century Latin Vulgate (translation from the Greek) uses “chalice” and I think that the translators of this version of the Mass in English have chosen to be more faithful to the (derived) Latin than to the original Greek of the gospels.