This is something I’ve really been hoping and praying for. I’ve even thought about writing Cardinal Arinze and imploring him to do this, because the release of the new translation of the Mass is the perfect opportunity to do this, and with B16 in office, the pope would have the sensitivity to the issue to realize how much benefit this change would be.
I was therefore DEE-lighted when a reader e-mailed this story from Catholic World News:
Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules
Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) – The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new English-language translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." All new English-language translations will use "for many" when they appear.
Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of episcopal conferences of the English-speaking world, informing them of the Vatican decision.
The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):
…It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:
…qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.
YEE-HAW!!!
BIG CHT to the reader!
Now, since we don’t have the letter from Cardinal Arinze in hand, this is still officially only a rumor. However, it feels like a substantive one. The rumor doesn’t say that they’re going to do this. It says Arinze has already written the bishops’ conference heads. This is precisely the way the Vatican would make a change of this nature (note the recent letter of Cardinal Arinze I published regarding the change on purification of vessels), and the story has the ring of truth to me. My guess is that one of Phil Lawler’s sources in the Congregation for Divine Worship or the curia of a bishop who has seen the letter leaked it to Phil.
If it’s true, the letter should be appearing in the BCL Newsletter soon, and I’ll keep y’all informed.
Even if it’s not true, a flurry of coverageon this could raise the profile of the issue and result int the CDW taking action. In other words, this could turn into a self-fulfilling rumor.
Either way, I’m very heartened by this news and really hope that it’s true.
A substantial part of the "Novus Ordo is invalid" hoo-hah stems precisely from the mistranslation of pro multis as "for all."
And it is really embarassing to have a boneheaded mistranslation right there in the consecration. The Holy See should never have approved that. Pro multis clearly means "for many" or "for the many" or "for the multitude" and not "for all."
Admittedly, Jesus did shed his blood for all, and the mistranslation is not one that would affect the validity of the consecration since it deals with why Jesus did what he did (and he did truly do it) and not what the elements have become.
But we shouldn’t even have to argue this point! The mistranslation shouldn’t be there and raise needless doubts in the minds of the faithful, who then need to be talked through why this isn’t invalidating.
The simple step of getting rid of the mistranslation will help enormously with anti-rad trad apologetics.
What will be interesting to see is if the Holy See proceeds to mandate the same change in the texts of other languages that have the same mistranslation . . . like Italian.
Kudos to His Awesomeness Cardinal Arinze and His Most Awesomeness B16. Y’all’re aces!
Next up: Calvinists declaring an initial victory in the debate over Limited Atonement
The letter from Cdl. Arinze is already posted here:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3923
I wondered how this news would be received here as I have heard Catholic Answers apologists go through all kinds of contortions trying to explain why there is nothing wrong with the ‘for all’ translation on their radio show. Unfortunately, the glee seems to really come from the hope that this “will help enormously with anti-rad trad apologetics.” Much is revealed by this hope. Well, some of us will celebrate if by correctly rendering this term more Catholics realize that salvation is not assured; they become more concerned about their own salvation; and as a result more souls are saved – which is what this is all supposed to be about anyway.
The biggest hat tip should go to Father Zuhlsdorf who made the intellectual arguments and encouraged his readers to write the letters that made this victory possible. Check out his blog here.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/
Why does the Christian Church always tend to limit Christ’s gift of Life – especially of Holy Communion? Catholics backtrack to Jansenism and Free Church folk only celebrate the Eucharist at wide intervals, typically quarterly. Even the “apostles” wanted Jesus to “send them away” when they were at the prefigured eucharist beside the Sea of Galilee. Luckily for us, Jesus didn’t.
Hallelujah indeed, Jimmy. Our new Holy Father has such a deep love and knowledge for the liturgy. I can’t wait to see what his pontificate has in store for the celebration of mass!!
My biggest problem with “for all” is that, beyond a mistranslation, it’s a mis*quote*: Jesus said “for many, ” not “for all.”
Which means, JW, that the Christian Church isn’t limiting Christ’s gift of Life, Christ *Himself* limited his gift.
I agree, Jeremy. Christ limited His gift to those of us who would accept it; He will not force Himself on those who deliberately reject Him.
“Catholics backtrack to Jansenism and Free Church folk only celebrate the Eucharist at wide intervals, typically quarterly.”
I don’t about Jansenism–reception of Holy Communion in the contemporary Catholic Church seems to be about as widespread as it’s ever been–even among those who don’t believe in the True Presence.
You have to keep in mind what Catholics believe the Eucharist to be–the actual body and blood of Jesus sacrificed on Calvary–and what “Free Church folk” believe it to be–a meal that symbolizes the Last Supper.
What might appear to be Jansenism is really a natural response to belief in the True Presence. Real Catholics must consider whether their soul is properly disposed to receiving the Sacrament. “Free Church folk” wouldn’t see the need for frequent Communion, because after all, it’s just bread and wine.
What might appear to be Jans
(end of above post, which didn’t all show)
What might appear to be Jansenism is really a natural response to belief in the True Presence. Real Catholics must consider whether their soul is properly disposed to receiving the Sacrament. “Free Church folk” wouldn’t see the need for frequent Communion, because after all, it’s just bread and wine.
The simple step of getting rid of the mistranslation will help enormously with anti-rad trad apologetics.
Well that’s charitable.
Myself a neo con/trad will only pray for a B17 younger and willing to take on those within the church who have forgot the 1960’s peace and love is over. Yes God loves us, but he is also a just God (do we not read the OT anymore?) and the saved will be few. What a suprise so many will have when our short time on this earth comes to an end. Does Gnashing of teeth ring a bell anyone?
Actually, “many” (pollon) apparently implies a big ol’ crowd of saved people. Hoi polloi, even.
Just not everybody, since not everybody wants to accept the gift.
Does Gnashing of teeth ring a bell anyone?
sounds a lot like what you do in these comboxes…
Remove Italics?
WonderTwin italics . . . OFF!
sorry. I thought I knew how to turn them off, but I was WRONG. I guess I’ll have to go back to the regular quotation marks, but the italics is visually so much better.
as a traditionalist Catholic who understands the reasons why the validity of the n.o. is not affected by the erroneous “for all” mistranslation, it still warms my heart that that particular cause for concern will be removed. before casting stones at the misguided “rad trads” who believe that the mistranslation impinges on validity, it would be helpful to mull over the possibility that the mistranslation was all the while intended to cause confusion for the unstated ends of those advancing the hermeneutics of rupture.
Truth is always the best policy, if you are a Catholic.
it would be helpful to mull over the possibility that the mistranslation was all the while intended to cause confusion for the unstated ends of those advancing the hermeneutics of rupture.
TIM:
This would be more so a cynical (and, not to mention, a distorted) interpretation of the facts.
Obviously, “for all” in Latin is pro omnibus and, for the words of consecration, pro multis, which is “for many”, was said throughout the Latin Church for many years.
Yet, those words, “This is the Cup of My Blood given up for All” or “… for the Many”, there are actually 2 truths that are being communicated at that point:
(1) “for the Many” – meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.
However, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.
Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., “Christ died for All”) is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.
We have to remember that when we’re talking about Scripture, which is really what is being quoted here in the Liturgy, there are different levels; there are many levels of understanding to a particular text.
I could give you an example: Psalm 2:7 refers prophetically to Jesus.
It says, “Thou are my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee.”
Well, Hebrews 1:5 uses that verse to demonstrate the eternal generation of the Son, eternally begotten of the Father.
Whereas if you go to Acts 13, Paul uses that same text to demonstrate the Resurrection: Christ is begotten from the Dead. In Hebrew 5:5, the writer to the Hebrews uses that same text, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee” for the eternal priesthood of Christ, the Melchizedek priesthood. So, the same verse of Scripture has different levels of meaning. Just because we apply it in a particular way in one verse doesn’t mean that the other meanings somehow go away.
Corrigendum:
(1) “for the Many” – meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.
(2) “for all” – however, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.
Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., “Christ died for All”) is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.
We have to remember that when we’re talking about Scripture, which is really what is being quoted here in the Liturgy, there are different levels; there are many levels of understanding to a particular text.
I could give you an example:
Psalm 2:7 refers prophetically to Jesus.
It says, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee.”
Well, Hebrews 1:5 uses that verse to demonstrate the eternal generation of the Son: eternally begotten of the Father.
Whereas if you go to Acts 13, Paul uses that same text to demonstrate the Resurrection: Christ is begotten from the Dead.
In Hebrew 5:5, the writer to the Hebrews uses that same text, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee” for the eternal priesthood of Christ: the Melchizedek priesthood.
So, the same verse of Scripture has different levels of meaning. Just because we apply it in a particular way in one verse doesn’t mean that the other meanings somehow go away.
Monica, your problem was that you tried to close it, but instead of closing it with </i>, you put in another </i>. Consequently, two </i> were needed to close it.
Preview is a marvelous invention. 0:)
Well, if Christ didn’t say, “It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven,” then I’ve been in the wrong religion all my life. Consummatum est. Either He atoned for Man without exception, or He didn’t. There is no gray area.
He appears to limit how many times we are to forgive another, “70 times 7 times,” but that actually indicates “unlimitedly” — not 490. Same kind of semantics with the Mary-as-co-redemptrix problem; yes, in some ways that word is appropriate, but it’ll only confuse those who don’t delve deeply for how the Church means it. We do not have two Saviours. The vagaries accounted for my years of wondering if I would number among the 144,000 from each tribe/house. Compared with the size of the world’s population from start unto finish, 144,000 select seemed very very small. Perhaps He knew just how legalistic life would become, and actually will demand not only faith from us, but mercy — rather than us demanding proof from Him. He also didn’t make a definitive answer to Pilate.
Honora:
In the other thread “Pro Multis”, Phil M. had already provided the following that Christ did not die for all:
Jesus in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 said “for many” (but, hey, He’s the messiah and second person of the Trinity)
I had provided a quote from St. Paul in 1st Timothy Chapter 2:3-4, but I guess St. Paul’s words mean nothing. It’s a wonder why most, if not, all his epistles were all included in the bible! I don’t even know why Christ actually made him an Apostle!
1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,
4 Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
“In the other thread “Pro Multis”, Phil M. had already provided the following that Christ did not die for all”
Esau, you are taking what I wrote WAY out of context. Of course Jesus died for all. Is anyone here really arguing that He didn’t?? We are discussing whether or not it is proper to mistranslate his words at the last supper and alter what has been used during the consecration of the precious blood for centuries.
Apologies, Phil M.
I accept. See other thread.
Did Jimmy Akin do 180 on this issue? Here is a quote from his book, Mass Confusion, where he supports “for all” translation: “According to exegetes [which exegetes?], the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”: the many for whom Christ died is without limit. . . . [i ]t is theologically true that Christ shed his blood for all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2). The claim that he shed his blood only for the elect or only for the faithful was condemned during the Jansenist controversy (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096, 1294. Finally, in biblical idiom, the term ‘many’ is often used as a synonym for ‘all.’{p.120-121)
Jimmy, before you answer “totallycatholic,” you might like to know that the passage he has quoted is a copy-paste from an article in “The Remnant,” found here:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1130-pro-multis.htm
I note that “The Remnant” has provided a partial quote of a “This Rock” article that has a partial quote from your book “Mass Confusion.” I haven’t seen either the article or your book, but I know it is dangerous to draw conclusions about what somebody may have meant based on out-of-context partial quotes at three degrees remove. “Remnant” has been known to botch things – as Father Zuhlsdorf has pointed, this very article that “totallycatholic” is quoting from includes a laughable error about “The Wanderer” – so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have misinterpreted and misrepresented what you said about the translation of “pro multis.” Any light you can shed on this question will be much appreciated.
Did Jimmy Akin do 180 on this issue? Here is a quote from his book, Mass Confusion, where he supports “for all” translation: “According to exegetes [which exegetes?], the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”: the many for whom Christ died is without limit. . . . [i ]t is theologically true that Christ shed his blood for all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2). The claim that he shed his blood only for the elect or only for the faithful was condemned during the Jansenist controversy (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096, 1294. Finally, in biblical idiom, the term ‘many’ is often used as a synonym for ‘all.’{p.120-121)
Something suspicious here —
Is this “TotallyCatholic” the same person Tim J. dealt with in another thread under the alias “History Unveiled”?
The posts are practically almost identical in content!
In any event, kindly refer to Tim J’s response below:
Do you imagine that you are the only one who has read “Mass Confusion”?
You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of “for all” in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?
Nowhere does Jimmy claim that “for all” is the superior translation, but only does his job in pointing out that the translation falls well within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. It is certainly nothing worthy of protest or schism.
You only caught Jimmy being reasonable again… but reason is scandalous to some, I suppose.
Posted by: Tim J. | Nov 21, 2006 10:42:02 AM
St. Pius V, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and St. Robert Bellarmine would appear to strenuously disagree with some of the interpretations being propounded on this thread (and no, I don’t think the NO is invalid, but I do think this particular ICEL mistranslation (which is so repetitive throughout the Missal as to be almost obviously deliberate) is quite scandalously placed):
Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words. which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (‘our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
And:
Treatise on the Holy Eucharist. St. Alphonsus Liguori.
The words Pro vobis et pro multis (“For you and for many”) are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (effcaciter) it does not save all-it saves only those who co-operate with grace.
A correction to the above: The ICEL’s habit of mistranslating (not that one instance of mistranslation) is so repetitive as to be certainly deliberate.
Indeed, their former priests have admitted as much:
http://www.fisheaters.com/frsomerville.html
Thanks, “A Traditional Catholic”.
I really appreciated that post.
“Is this ‘TotallyCatholic’ the same person Tim J. dealt with in another thread under the alias ‘History Unveiled’?”
Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same person. Thanks for posting Tim J.’s response. Perhaps if someone could verify what Jimmy actually wrote in his book, and then we could know whether or not the Remnant has correctly interpreted the quote from Jimmy’s book that they found in This Rock magazine.
Mary, I actually did the preview, but forgot that a slash was necessary! I even looked at other posts in the preview page to see what they had done but it doesn’t show up. Now I know. I still think those keys arter be in a permapost somewhere for us dummies who forget.
Is this “TotallyCatholic” the same person Tim J. dealt with in another thread under the alias “History Unveiled”?
Nope, sorry. Different poster.
In any event, kindly refer to Tim J’s response below:
Do you imagine that you are the only one who has read “Mass Confusion”?
You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of “for all” in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?
Nowhere does Jimmy claim that “for all” is the superior translation, but only does his job in pointing out that the translation falls well within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. It is certainly nothing worthy of protest or schism
I am sure that Jimmy is not above being needled when he deserves it. The fact is that he flipped on the issue. We can parse words like politicians and claim differently but it seems what makes him most happy is that he no longer has to support the weak position in his anti-radtrad apologetics efforts.
“The fact is that he flipped on the issue.”
Let’s see: Jimmy wrote that “for all” is a defendable translation and “for many” is a better translation. If Jimmy had written that “for all” is the better translation, and later wrote that “for all” is not the better translation, that would be a flip.
The fact is that he flipped on the issue.
Kindly provide an exact quote from the book.
I hardly think Jimmy is the type to “flip on the issue”. I don’t know Jimmy personally, but I am acquainted with the type who do and Jimmy’s demeanor in these blogs and at Catholic Answers hardly strikes me as this type of individual.
You need to understand that Jimmy is the type to defend the Catholic Church on all fronts and he may have provided a defense of the usage of “for all” but I hardly believe that he preferred that to “for many”.
Just like, in my case, I prefer that Catholic churches in America be built the way they were in Europe way back when in the “old days” instead of the way they’re built nowadays with all these modern conceptions of Cathoic church architecture; although, I, myself, do not appreciate these modern Catholic churches, but, in any case, there are certainly defensible positions in why they’re okay to be built that way.
If someone would provide a quote from Jimmy’s book, then we can find out what he actually wrote. Considering the source (The Remnant), I’m inclined to be very skeptical that Jimmy “flipped.” Ferrara didn’t even bother to go to Jimmy’s book, but quoted This Rock quoting Jimmy’s book. Ferrara also laughably claimed that The Wanderer, publisher of Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s arguments in favor of the correct translation of PRO MULTIS, was a supporter of the “for all” mistranslation as superior to “for many.” Given Ferrara’s slipshod work here, the burden of proof I think is on those who claim that Jimmy “flipped.” I think Bill912 has probably got Jimmy’s position in “Mass Confusion” right. But a direct quote would help. Let “totallycatholic” and “History Unveiled” produce their evidence or else retract their assertions and insinuations.
The point being that Jimmy is not the type to flip on anything.
If you were to even observe the way Jimmy answers people’s questions, he makes a deliberate effort to answer them with certain precision.
I don’t have a copy of “Mass Confusion” with me; therefore, as I’ve requested, I would like those who make such accusations to produce an exact quote to corroborate their otherwise fallacious position.
The quote is from This Rock. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005ltrs.asp
Read down to the letter with Strawman in the title.
To be fair, this Rock seemed to try to restrict the definition of radtrad to sedevacantists even though on this blog a more expansive definition is being used most of the time. The thing is, even non-radtrads saw a problem with the ‘for all’ translation.
This one lousy paragraph does not reveal if Jimmy Akin, himself, espoused the use of “for all” over “for many” — rather, what it does reveal is that there is a defensible position for the use of “for all”; nothing more.
I am absolutely delighted that the NO as we know it is slowly being chipped away, bit by bit. I have read where folks say the term “for all” wasn’t deliberate, but I feel the bottom line all falls to the hippie 60s and 70s generations need and desire to be ALL Inclusive. If the term For All were used, then everyone would feel good. It seems that it has taken us over 35 years to figure out that “experimenting” with a liturgy that has been with us for centuries, has been a big failure. The church is now paying for it, and it will take years for her to recover from its after effects. Thank God for B16 and the wonderful Card. Arinze. “And the gates of hell will not prevail”.
Anyone awake on this blog?? The novus ordo missae invented by the apostate bishop Annabale Bugnini and his little group of consultants of the protestant aka heretical aka schismatic vein and propagated and enforced for 40 years by the Bishops of Rome, Paul 6, JP 1 & JP 2 had been a long time in the planning. Freemasonry long ago dropped it’s avowed pledge to destroy the Catholic Church but rather to infiltrate, occupy and use it’s universality for Masonry’s own ends. We can thank Vatican 2 for the protestant mass, popes smoozing with infidels like muslims and idol worshippers like hindus. It didn’t start with Vatican 2 but the useless and unnecessary council called by Roncalli fullfilled the dreams of Catholic haters like Freemasons, muslims protesting catholics aka protestants and Christ haters in general.Thank you John 23, paul 6, jp1 & jp2 for the loss of millions of souls since the council called vatican two. Thank God, god is the judge of these people, I would not really want to be one of the aforementioned Roman pontiffs wearin my Kippah on jugement day and trying to explain the mess in the Roman Catholic Church in the year 2006. I do take heart that Christ and his Church after all is said and done WILL prevail——Shalom
I’m reserving the name “Jimmy” to myself in order to prevent confusion. Please choose a different handle for comboxing.
Also, be careful about hobby-horse-ism.
Jimmy (Akin),
I just wanted to commend you on your rather virtuous, but, more importantly, Christian behavior!
With certain folks out there in their blogs actually engaging in character assasinations of you, I’ve yet to find in your blog any retaliation on your part.
God Bless You and Take Care, Brutha!