The conversion of bishop-theologian Bruno Forte

Italian journalist Sandro Magister reports that the archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, who had been outspoken in support of the last generation's mistranslation of pro multis, has reconsidered and now supports a return to "for many". Italy continues to have the incorrect translation in its version of the Mass, and this summer a large majority of the Italian bishops voted to keep it that way.

Italian Bishops vs. Pro Multis

Found here:

Italian bishops debate translation of pro multis
CWN - July 26, 2012

The Catholic bishops of Italy, among others, have resisted the urging of Pope Benedict XVI to revise translations of the Mass so that the Latin words pro multis in the words of consecration to read “for the many” rather than “for all.” However, scholars and Church officials are suggesting an alternative translation.

Prompted by the Pontiff, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a call for new translations in 2006. The bishops of the English-speaking world acceded to the directive, and the new English translation of the Mass uses “for many.” But the Italian bishops voted last year, by an overwhelming 171- 11, to retain the existing phrase per tutti.

Italian and German bishops have explained that using the equivalent of “the many” in their languages could obscure the fact that Jesus offered salvation to all of mankind. Now Italian bishops are suggesting an alternative, per la moltitudine. The French bishops have approved a similar translation: pour la multitude.

Additional sources for this story

• "Pro Multis." The Pope's Translation Is Gaining Support (L'Espresso)
• “For the multitude” not “for all” (Vatican Insider)

---

(Matthew 26:28 records our Lord as saying that He sheds His Blood "for many", not "for the many" much less "for all"). So sorry to see that careless disregard for the words of consecration can still be widely found amoung the world's bishops.

Letter to the German Bishops

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI 
PRO MULTIS
TO H.E. MSGR. ROBERT ZOLLITSCH
ARCHBISHOP OF FREIBURG
PRESIDENT OF THE EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE OF GERMANY

From the Vatican, 14 April 2012

Your Excellency, Dear Archbishop,

During your visit on 15 March 2012, you informed me that there is still no unanimity among the bishops of the German-speaking world with regard to the translation of the words “pro multis” in the Eucharistic Prayers of the Mass. There seems to be a risk that in the new edition of Gotteslob that is due to be published shortly, some parts of the German-speaking world wish to retain the translation “for all”, even if the German Bishops’ Conference should agree to use “for many”, as requested by the Holy See. I promised that I would write to you on this important matter, in order to circumvent a division of this kind at the very heart of our prayer. This letter that I am addressing through you to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference will also be sent to the other bishops of the German-speaking world.

Let me begin with a brief word about how the problem arose. In the 1960s, when the Roman Missal had to be translated into German, under the responsibility of the bishops, there was a consensus among exegetes to the effect that the word “many” in Is 53:11f. is a Hebrew expression referring to the totality, “all”. It would follow that the use of the word “many” in the institution narratives of Matthew and Mark is a Semitism and should be translated “all”. This argument was also applied to the Latin text that was being translated directly, and it was claimed that “pro multis” points beyond the Gospel narratives to Is 53 and should therefore be translated “for all”. This exegetical consensus has collapsed in the meantime: it no longer exists. In the official German translation of the Scriptures, the account of the Last Supper includes the words: “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many” (Mk 14:24; cf. Mt 26:28). This highlights something very important: the rendering of “pro multis” as “for all” was not merely a translation but an interpretation, a well-founded interpretation then as now, but an interpretation nevertheless, something more than a translation.

In a certain sense, this combination of translation and interpretation was one of the principles that governed the translation of liturgical books into modern languages immediately after the Council. It was realized how remote the Bible and liturgical texts were from the linguistic and conceptual world of people today, so that even in translation they were bound to remain largely unintelligible to worshippers. It was a new development that the sacred texts were now being made accessible to worshippers in translation, and yet they would remain remote from their world, indeed that remoteness was made manifest for the first time. So it seemed not only justifiable but even necessary to build interpretation into the translation and in this way to speak more directly to the listeners, whose hearts and minds these words were intended to reach.

Up to a point, the principle of translating the content rather than the literal meaning of key texts is still justified. Since I constantly have to say liturgical prayers in a variety of languages, though, it strikes me that the different translations sometimes have little in common and that often the common text underlying them can scarcely be detected. Some banal elements have also crept in, which are real impoverishments. So over the years it has become increasingly clear to me personally that as an approach to translation, the principle of structural as opposed to literal equivalence has its limits. In accordance with insights of this kind, the instruction for translators Liturgiam Authenticam, issued on 28 March 2001 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, shifted the focus back onto the principle of literal equivalence, without of course requiring a one-sided verbalism. The important insight underpinning this instruction is the above-mentioned distinction between translation and interpretation. It is necessary both for Scripture and for liturgical texts. On the one hand, the sacred text must appear as itself as far as possible, even if it seems alien and raises questions; on the other hand the Church has the task of explaining it, so that within the limits of our understanding, the message that the Lord intends for us actually reaches us. Not even the most sensitive translation can take away the need for explanation: it is part of the structure of revelation that the word of God is read within the exegetical community of the Church – faithfulness and drawing out the contemporary relevance go together. The word must be presented as it is, with its own shape, however strange it may appear to us; the interpretation must be measured by the criterion of faithfulness to the word itself, while at the same time rendering it accessible to today’s listeners.

In this context, the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal, the words “pro multis” should be translated as they stand, and not presented in the form of an interpretation. In the place of the interpretative explanation “for all”, the simple rendering “for many” must appear. Let me take the opportunity to point out that neither Matthew nor Mark uses the definite article, so it is not “for the many”, but “for many”. If this decision makes a great deal of sense, as I hope it does, in terms of the fundamental relationship between translation and exegesis, I am also aware that it poses an enormous challenge to those with the task of explaining the word of God in the Church, since to the ordinary church-goer it will almost inevitably seem like a rupture at the heart of the sacred. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her teaching? Can she do so? May she do so? Are there reactionary forces at work here to destroy the heritage of the Council? We all know from experience of the last fifty years how deeply the alteration of liturgical forms and texts touches people’s souls. How greatly perturbed people will be, then, by a change in the text at such a key moment. This being so, when the decision was made to opt for the translation “many”, in view of the difference between translation and explanation, it was established at the same time that a thorough catechesis would be needed to prepare the way for this translation in the various language regions: the bishops would have to help the priests, and through them the lay faithful, to understand exactly what this is about. Prior catechesis is the essential condition for adoption of the new translation. As far as I am aware, no such catechesis has yet taken place in the German-speaking world. The purpose of my letter is urgently to ask all of you, my dear Brother Bishops, to develop a catechesis of this kind, to discuss it with the priests and to make it available to the lay faithful.

The first element in such catechesis would have to be a brief explanation as to why the word “many” was rendered as “all” in the translation of the Missal prepared after the Council: in order to express unequivocally, in the sense willed by Jesus, the universality of the salvation that he brought. The question immediately arises: if Jesus died for all, then why did he say “for many” at the Last Supper? And why do we retain these words of Jesus for the institution? Here it must be added straight away that according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said “for many”, while according to Luke and Paul he said “for you”, which seems to narrow the focus even further. Yet it is precisely this that points towards the solution. The disciples know that Jesus’ mission extends beyond them and their circle, they know that he came to gather together the scattered children of God from all over the world (Jn 11:52). Yet this “for you” makes Jesus’ mission quite concrete for those present. They are not simply anonymous elements within some vast whole: each one of them knows that the Lord died precisely for me, for us. “For you” covers the past and the future, it means me, personally; we, who are assembled here, are known and loved by Jesus for ourselves. So this “for you” is not a narrowing down, but a making concrete, and it applies to every eucharistic community, concretely uniting it to the love of Jesus. In the words of consecration, the Roman Canon combined the two biblical formulae, and so it says “for you and for many”. This formula was then adopted for all the Eucharistic Prayers at the time of the liturgical reform.

Once again, though, we ask: why “for many”? Did the Lord not die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is the man for all men, the new Adam, is one of the fundamental convictions of our faith. Let me recall just three Scriptural texts on the subject: God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, as Paul says in the Letter to the Romans (8:32). “One has died for all,” as he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthiansconcerning Jesus’ death (5:14). Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” as we read in the First Letter to Timothy (2:6). So the question arises once more: if this is so clear, why do we say “for many” in the Eucharistic Prayer? Well, the Church has taken this formula from the institution narratives of the New Testament. She says these words out of deference for Jesus’ own words, in order to remain literally faithful to him. Respect for the words of Jesus himself is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic Prayer. But then we ask: why did Jesus say this? The reason is that in this way Jesus enables people to recognize him as the Suffering Servant of Is53, he reveals himself as the figure to whom the prophecy refers. The Church’s respect for the words of Jesus, Jesus’ fidelity to the words of “Scripture”: this double fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation “for many”. In this chain of respectful fidelity, we too take our place with a literal translation of the words of Scripture.

Just as we saw earlier that the “for you” of the Luke-Paul tradition does not restrict but rather makes concrete, so now we recognize that the dialectic “many” – “all” has a meaning of its own. “All” concerns the ontological plane – the life and ministry of Jesus embraces the whole of humanity: past, present and future. But specifically, historically, in the concrete community of those who celebrate the Eucharist, he comes only to “many”. So here we see a threefold meaning of the relationship between “many” and “all”. Firstly, for us who are invited to sit at his table, it means surprise, joy and thankfulness that he has called me, that I can be with him and come to know him. “Thank the Lord that in his grace he has called me into his Church.” Secondly, this brings with it a certain responsibility. How the Lord in his own way reaches the others – “all” – ultimately remains his mystery. But without doubt it is a responsibility to be directly called to his table, so that I hear the words “for you” – he suffered for me. The many bear responsibility for all. The community of the many must be the lamp on the lamp-stand, a city on the hilltop, yeast for all. This is a vocation that affects each one of us individually, quite personally. The many, that is to say, we ourselves, must be conscious of our mission of responsibility towards the whole. Finally, a third aspect comes into play. In today’s society we often feel that we are not “many”, but rather few – a small remnant becoming smaller all the time. But no – we are “many”: “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues,”, as we read in the Revelation of Saint John (7:9). We are many and we stand for all. So the words “many” and “all” go together and are intertwined with responsibility and promise.

Your Excellency, dear Brother Bishops, with these thoughts I have tried to set out the basic content of the catechesis with which priests and laity are to be prepared as soon as possible for the new translation. I hope that all of this can at the same time nourish a deeper participation in the Holy Eucharist and thus take its place within the great task that lies ahead of us in the “Year of Faith”. I hope too that the catechesis will be presented soon and will thus become part of the renewal of worship that the Council strove to achieve from its very first session.

With paschal blessings, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

A New Translation

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away.

I went to Mass this evening, the first Mass at our parish using the new translation of the Novus Ordo. What a joy to hear our Lord's words spoken accurately at the Consecration! We in the congregation stumbled over our words in parts, nearly falling silent during the Creed at the words "by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary", but our pastor has high hopes. He spoke in his homily of catechetics that would teach the faith sooner and more thoroughly than has been common in recent years, and Masses that would offer worship to our Creator with profounder reverence and awe. May God bless his efforts and favor the work of his hands.

Hymn of Thanksgiving

Te Deum laudamus	We praise Thee, O God;
te Dominum confitemur.	we acknowledge Thee to be the Lord.
Te aeternum Patrem	Thee, the Father everlasting,
omnis terra veneratur.	all the earth doth worship.
Tibi omnes Angeli;	To Thee all Angels,
tibi caeli et universae Potestates;	to Thee the heavens and the powers of the universe,
Tibi Cherubim et Seraphim	to Thee the Cherubim and Seraphim
incessabili voce proclamant:	cry out with unceasing voice:
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,	Holy, Holy, Holy,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth.	Lord God of Hosts;
Pleni sunt caeli et terra	Heaven and earth are full
maiestatis gloriae tuae.	of the majesty of Thy glory.
Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus,	Thee, the glorious choir of angels,
Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus,	Thee, the admirable company of the Prophets,
Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus.	Thee, the white-robed army of martyrs
Te per orbem terrarum	Thee, throughout all the world,
sancta confitetur Ecclesia,	the Holy Church acknowledges,
Patrem immensae maiestatis:	The Father, of an infinite Majesty;
Venerandum tuum verum et unicum Filium;	worthy of worship, Thy true and only Son;
Sanctum quoque Paraclitum Spiritum.	and also the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.
Tu Rex gloriae, Christe.	Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ.
Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius.	Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem,	When Thou didst take upon Thee to deliver man,
non horruisti Virginis uterum.	Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb.
Tu, devicto mortis aculeo,	Thou, after defeating the sting of death,
aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum.	didst open the kingdom of the heaven to those who believe.
Tu ad dexteram Dei sedes, in gloria Patris.	Thou sittest at the right hand of God in the glory of the Father.
Iudex crederis esse venturus.	We believe that Thou shalt come to be our Judge.
Te ergo quaesumus, tuis famulis subveni:	We pray Thee, therefore, help Thy servants,
quos pretioso sanguine redemisti.	whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy precious blood.
Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis in gloria numerari.	Make them to be numbered with Thy Saints in everlasting glory.
Salvum fac populum tuum, Domine,	save Thy people, O Lord,
et benedic hereditati tuae.	and bless Thine inheritance.
Et rege eos, et extolle illos usque in aeternum.	Govern them, and lift them up for ever.
Per singulos dies benedicimus te;	Day by day we bless Thee
Et laudamus Nomen tuum in saeculum, et in saeculum saeculi.	and we praise Thy name for ages, and to the age of ages.
Dignare, Domine, die isto sine peccato nos custodire.	Deign, O Lord, this day to keep us without sin.
Miserere nostri Domine, miserere nostri.	Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us.
Fiat misericordia tua, Domine,	Let Thy mercy be shown to us, O Lord,
super nos, quemadmodum speravimus in te.	as we have hoped in Thee.
In te, Domine, speravi:	In Thee, O Lord, I have hoped
Non confundar in aeternum.	let me not be confounded forever.

On occasions of solemn thanksgiving, the following prayers are added:

V. Benedictus es, Domine Deus patrum nostrorum.	Blessed art Thou, O Lord God of our fathers
R. Et laudabilis et gloriosus in saecula.	and worthy to be praised and glorified for ages.
V. Benedicamus Patrem et Filium cum Spiritu sancto.	Let us bless the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost.
R. Laudemus et superexaltemus eum in secula.	Let us praise and exalt Him above all forever.
V. Benedictus es, Domine, in firmamento coeli.	Blessed art Thou, O Lord, in the firmament of heaven.
R. Et laudabilis et gloriosus et superexaltatus in secula.	And worthy of praise, and glorious, and exalted for ever.
V. Benedic, anima mea, Dominum.	Bless, O my soul, the Lord.
R. Et noli oblivisci omnes retributiones ejus.	And forget not all his benefits.
V. Domine, exaudi orationem meam.	O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. Et clamor meus ad te veniat.	And let my cry come unto Thee.
V. Dominus vobiscum.	The Lord be with you.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.	And with Thy spirit.
Oremus	Let us pray.
Deus, cujus misericordiae non est numerus, et bonitatis infinitus est thesaurus, piissimae Majestati tuae pro collatis donis gratias agimus, tuam semper clementiam exorantes: ut qui petentibus postulata concedis, eosdem non deserens, ad praemia futura disponas.	O God, Whose mercies are without number and Whose goodness is an infinite treasure: we render thanks to Thy most gracious Majesty for the gifts Thou hast bestowed upon us, always imploring Thy mercy, that as Thou grantest the prayers of those that ask Thee, Thou wilt never forsake them but will prepare them for the future reward.
Deus, qui corda fidelium Sancti Spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem Spiritu recta sapere et de ejus semper consolatione gaudere.	O God, who hast taught the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Ghost, grant that by the gift of the same Spirit we may be truly wise, and ever rejoice in His consolation.
Deus, qui neminem in te sperantem nimium affligi permittis, sed pium precibus praestas auditum: pro postulationibus nostris votisque susceptis gratias agimus, te piissime deprecantes, ut a cunctis semper muniamur adversis. Per Dominum nostrum.	O God, Who allowest no one who puts his trust in Thee to be afflicted beyond his strength, but givest a gracious hearing to his prayer, we thank Thee for receiving our petitions, and beseech Thee, most holy, to ever protect us from the adversities of life. [This we ask] through Jesus Christ our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God through all the ages of ages.
R. Amen	Amen

whoever wishes to be great

from today's gospel:

But Jesus summoned them and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and the great ones make their authority over them felt.
But it shall not be so among you.
Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;
whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.
Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve
and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 20:25-28

"Consubstantial this, pal"

Some progressives are still fighting against a correct translation of the words of consecration in the novus ordo Mass, or as this blogger puts it: "the very tendentious 'which will be shed for you and for many' in the institution narrative of the Eucharistic prayer".

What a strange opinion, that the direct translation of our Lord's words, chosen, apparently, by every single translator of the Gospels into English, is "tendentious", while an inaccurate paraphrase, used in no Gospel translation, is to be preferred.

From the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic:

Notice that "for many" is two words in Aramaic, not the single word that the blogger claims, and that translating directly from Aramaic to English, the correct translation is still "for many", not "for all".

Gliding through the blogosphere

Made comments this evening on my two favorite subjects:

On the return of the old Mass, in Καθολικός διάκονος:

Since you have "no burning desire to return to the missal of 1962" you are welcome to continue attending the novus ordo. By all accounts, the motu proprio will make the traditional Mass more available to those who want it; it will not outlaw the new one for those who want that. Some of us have been hoping for a restoration of the old Mass for a long time, especially in dioceses that make it pointlessly difficult to get to. (My diocese allows a Latin Mass once per month, in one location a long drive away, and in the past allowed it less often than that).

One of the differences between the introduction of the new Rite of the Mass and the proposed partial restoration of the old Rite is that the new Rite was forced on people whether they wanted it or not; now the old Rite will be offered for those who want it, without suppressing the new.

Why can't the new Rite and old co-exist? I have seen several parishes get along just fine with different Masses in different languages (e.g. English and Spanish, or English and Polish). The Eastern Catholics seem to cope with having more than one Divine Liturgy available without difficulty.

I'm not convinced that people were more disconnected from the liturgy in pre-Vatican II days. Attendance has dropped off since the introduction of the New Mass. Maybe some that have voted with their feet will return if given the option of returning to the Mass of Ages.

+++

On the correct translation of pro multis, in End of Times:

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Open your Bible to Matthew 26:28 and you can read what Jesus said. That is what the priest says he is going to say during the consecration. ("Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said...")

Speculation about what the Lord really intended even if he said something else is beside the point.

As you mention, we would not have had this problem if they had left it in Latin. The Mass's Latin "pro multis" matches the Bible's Greek "περι πολλων".

+++

In happy anticipation of the coming of the Lord and a renewal in the Church.

Fr. Z wants to talk about "consubstantialem Patri"...

... but some of us are not through with pro multis, yet.

(Guiding a discussion amongst bloggers is like herding cats).
Comments from RBrown in bold, my replies in normal font:

“The mistranslation of pro multis into for all does not change the meaning of the consecretory words, which are the words that signify the matter—Hic est calix sanguinis mei (that which signifies) and wine (the matter which is to be signified).

NB: In the account of the institution of the Eucharist found in Luke and St Paul (1st Cor), there is no mention in the consecration of Blood of pro anyone. Are we to say that Luke and Paul were saying invalid masses?”

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catechism taught:
The form of this Sacrament is the very words of Christ, “This is My Body,” and “This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.” According to St. Thomas, the consecration includes the mistranslated words.

St. Paul and St. Luke have pro vobis (“for you”). But neither claims to be providing a missal. They do not claim to be providing a complete transcript of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, either. They do include some of His words, and pro universis is not among them, so neither provides justification for putting the words “for all” into our Lord’s mouth at the consecration.

Comment by Anonymous — 21 November 2006 @ 8:19 pm

+++

RBrown, Are you saying that I have inaccurately quoted the Catechism of St. Thomas? I provided a link to a translation, and quoted from the first paragraph, where St. Thomas teaches that the form for the consecration of the wine is “This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.”

He teaches exactly the same in the article from the Summa which you quoted. Just before the part you quoted, St. Thomas writes:
Some have maintained that the words “This is the chalice of My blood” alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, “As often as ye shall do this,” ...

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form…

St. Thomas then describes the purpose of of the various words which together constitute the form of the sacrament. Note that he says that all of the words up to and including “remission of sins” are part of the form, not just the part that denotes the change of wine into blood.

In objection 2 of this article St. Thomas considers the possibility that the form is simply the words “This is the chalice of My blood”, without the words that follow, but he rejects this theory.

And please also note objection 1 with its reply, where St. Thomas affirms the longer form as the proper form.

1. The writings of Paul and Luke are part of Revelation, from which any missal is composed.
True enough, but that still does not mean that the Gospel of St. Luke, or St. Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians are themselves missals.

I never justified the use of “for all”. In fact, in an earlier thread…
Good. We agree that “for all” is an incorrect translation of both the Latin and the Greek and ought to be fixed.

Comment by Michael — 22 November 2006 @ 7:03 am

+++

The question, to which I first responded, was whether the use of “for all” renders the Sacrament invalid. My point is that the Pauline-Lukan consecretory formula is evidence that it does not.

Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 are partial quotes of our Lord’s words at the last supper, taken from documents that were not written for use as liturgical texts. It is not self-evident that they are adequate as consecretory formulae.

Even if they are, that merely shows that the words “for many” can be omitted; it does not demonstrate that the words “for all” can be added.

I am not attempting to argue that “for all” renders the consecration invalid. My point is to argue that the words “for all” are part of the consecretory formula of the Novus Ordo as currently translated into English. You said the consecratory words are “Hic est calix sanguinis mei”. St. Thomas by contrast, seems to indicate a longer formula—the same formula, in fact, cited by Pope St. Pius V in the question that Ioannes asked above.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:18 am

+++

To me the best translation is “for the multitude”.

In the comments on another article in Father Z’s blog, someone said that “for the many” in Greek would be περι των πολλων. But Matthew 26:28 in Greek (see here or here) has just περι πολλων. Are you sure that the “the” in your best translation is justified?

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:20 am

+++

ST, III, 78, 1: ...the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, “This is My body,” or, “This is the chalice of My blood.”

What do you say St. Thomas meant when he said in ST, III, 78, 3: “others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, ‘As often as ye shall do this’, ...”?

In that sentence St. Thomas concisely states which words are in the consecration.

In your comments on the 2nd objection, I think you have already agreed that the teaching of St. Thomas is that the form for the consecration extends from “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” to “effundetur in remissionem peccatorum”:
The 2d objection makes two arguments: First, that “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei” is a valid consecration; Second, that those words comprise the entire form. St Thomas only rejects the second argument.

I don’t see in his reply any affirmation that “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” by itself is sufficient, but even if it were, that would be irrelevant since the Novus Ordo consecration has more than that; the rest of the words have to be taken into account. By emphasizing that “for all” or “for many” is part of the consecration, my hope is to emphasize the seriousness and importance of getting these words right.

In ST, III, 78, 3, ad 1, St. Thomas offers the objection that the following is not the proper form: “This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”

In his reply, he uses only the words “This is the chalice of My blood” to stand for the whole expression. That he means the whole expression is evident from the objection he is answering, and from the title of the section (notice the et cetera), and from the paragraphs immediately preceeding this reply, particularly where he says that the substance of the form includes all the words down to but not including “As often as ye shall do this.”

Getting back to article 1, it seems that there too he was using the shorter phrase “This is the chalice of My blood” to stand in for the unwieldy whole. Otherwise, there is a discrepancy between what he says in articles 1 and 3.

It is article 3 that considers the words actually used for the consecration of the wine. Article 1 deals with the question of whether other parts of the Mass and Last Supper ought to be considered part of the consecration.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:30 am

+++

BTW, I am unaware of any catechism written by St Thomas.

According to the translator’s preface found here, the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas is for the most part a collection of sermons the Angelic Doctor delivered in the last year of his life (+ 1274). However, the part we are interested in, the “Explanation of the Seven Sacraments” is the second part of a treatise, “De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis,” which St. Thomas wrote at the request of the Archbishop of Palermo in 1261-62. The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas were used in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as manuals and textbooks for priests and teachers of religion.

“pro multis” is analogical, including two distinct concepts: (1) That Christ died for all (de fide); and (2) that it does not exclude the possibility the number saved is only rather a few (this is the opinion of St Thomas).

I’m not sure how “pro multis” carries the meaning of “for all”, even as a secondary meaning, if you read it as a translation of St. Matthew’s περι πολλων. According to this individual, claiming to hold a PhD in Greek, the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon’s definition of polus runs over two pages, with a variety of synonyms listed, but no “all” or even “multitude”. Similarly, in this article, the author notes that Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon lists many nuances of meaning with examples drawn from a variety of sources, but “all” is not amoung the possible meanings listed for πολλοί.

Thank you for your recommendation of ST, III, 60. I have not read that part of the Summa before, but will.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:36 am

+++

Michael: The problem here is that in translating the consecration formula the Church is not intending mainly to translate Scripture. The Church needs to provide a translation of the consecration formula. The Latin liturgical text constitutes its own starting point. The Church needs to consider the Latin text, not a Greek text, read certainly with the twin lenses of Scripture and also Tradition.

Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 November 2006 @ 7:56 am

+++

If the new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin text, as read with the twin lenses of Scripture and Tradition, I will be happy.

Cardinal Arinze's Letter

Posted by AJV in the Catholic Answers Forums

Prot. N. 467/05/L

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Excellency in the following terms:

1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. The expression "for many", while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the "many" to whom the text refers.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
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.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

+++

I am very grateful for this letter. If this blog were graced by more than one visitor every six months, it might be imprudent to criticize the letter at all, but protected by obscurity, I think it is safe to raise a reservation.

In light of the comments by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, and other saints of the Church quoted in this blog, I am not convinced that "the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text". Thank God that this question will be one of merely historical and academic interest in the near future! Thank God for the Holy Father, for setting this right!

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Great news from Catholic World News on the pro multis issue.

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 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." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."

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.

Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require

• The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
• The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
• The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
• “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
• The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
• In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

+++

Deo gratias, this is the answer to many prayers.

About "pro multis" #3

Next I posted a couple somewhat uncharitable messages to the About "pro multis" thread.

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rykell Who is to say whether Matthew or Luke spoke Jesus's words?

Still using St. Matthew's Gospel to attack the credibility of St. Luke's, and vice versa, I see. Where does either Evangelist claim to be providing a complete transcript of our Lord's words at the Last Supper? St. Luke says our Lord said "for you", St. Matthew says our Lord said "for many", and the Church in its Liturgies says that He said "for you and for many".

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Quote: Originally Posted by MikeDunphy "hoi pollen" means "the many" and is a phrase not found in Matthew 26:28, making it irrelevant to a discussion of the consecration. Sigh! While we'll never agree, even Alex has admitted that it be defined as more than just the words "the many". Many, multitude, populace, masses... And I'm sure Alex will be chiming in here to say that none of these mean more than many to which I don't agree. Again, I'm in good company and happy to be here.

You have missed my point entirely. Any interpretation you choose to give the phrase "hoi pollen" has nothing to do with the meaning of Matthew 26:28, because the phrase does not occur there. I gave you a link to a word by word translation Matthew 26:28 from Greek to English , so you could go see it for yourself.

__________________
when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ ... it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament
- St. Ambrose

+++

And then more speculation than I usually indulge in:

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by boppysbud So are we to assume that Jesus only died for SOME people, but not all? Are we now to become Calvinists? How are we to know who makes it to the predestined, the so called "elect" and who is just out of luck no matter what they do? When I left Protestantism I THOUGHT I was leaving Calvinism far behind. Was I mistaken? If God has already chosen who Jesus died for, and who he did not die for, then why even fool with baptism and going to Mass everything is already "fixed" no matter what we do or do not do.

A common Catholic belief is that God is outside of time and can see the entire history of the universe. He already knows the choices you will freely make. What you do in life matters, because God is a just judge. "The elect" are those who enter heaven, but the phrase does not imply double-predestination. "The elect" enter heaven because God wills what is good for them, and they consent to His will. The damned reject God and He does not force Himself on them.

Perhaps Jesus at the Last Supper refrained from praying for those eventually damned because He did not want to increase their blameworthiness. Perhaps, on the eve of His suffering, He wanted to show His love particularly for those who return His love.

Some say that both the blessed and the damned are surrounded by the same glory of God, but that the experience of God's glory is joyful for some and painful to others, depending on the state of their souls. Maybe when Christ our God pays particular attention to people, they experience His glory more intensely, so it would have been a blessing to the saved for Christ to attend to them, and a mercy to the damned for Christ in some sense to pull away from them.

Please note the maybes and the perhapses. If this doesn't help, I'm sure you can find a better explanation. May God help us to know and love the truth and forgive errors made in good faith.

+++

Notice that the last sentence can be read two different ways.

+++

I very nearly had the last word in this thread. Because of the acrimony of the debate, a moderator closed the thread while I was working on this reply:

Re: About "pro multis"

---

From your first reference:

Quote:

Definition: common people Synonyms: Middle America, commonality, commoners, great unwashed, huddled masses, infrastructure, masses, multitude, plebians, proletariat, rabble, rank and file, riffraff, the common people, the herd, the many, the masses, the working class, vulgus Antonyms: aristocracy, elite

According to your own reference, hoi polloi means the common people, as opposed to the elite. Since hoi polloi does not include the elite, it does not include all people and does not mean all.

Why are you bothering to argue about the meaning of hoi polloi, anyway? If you look up Matthew 26 in the original Greek, you will see Jesus quoted as saying He was shedding His blood περί πολλών, not περί των πολλών, that is, for many, not for the many. You are arguing about a phrase that does not appear in the Gospel passages from which the words of consecration are drawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 From dictionary.com http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi I actually wished they had a better one on-line but dictionary.com will do in this instance although I'm sure someone will challenge its veracity. Netmilsmom wanted dictionary.com, so here it is. Notice the long lenghty list of synonyms. And, I don't believe that you required Alex to give his on-line reference, Netmilsmom. Also, if you notice, Alex has agreed to other definitions than his original. The big argument now is whether the masses, the populace, etc. are all. I think yes, you think no. Got it.

+++

And I had notes for replying to this post:

...However, St. Thomas does indeed describe that "pro multis" can be interpreted in two senses, "for all" and "for many" depending upon if it regards sufficiency or it regards efficacy. ...

My reply:

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the commentaries of St. Thomas on the Sentences of Peter Lombard "furnished the materials and, in great part, the plan for his chief work, the Summa theologica".

That shows in the passages you have cited from his Summa and his Commentary; St. Thomas mentions the same objection in both to our Lord's words "for you and for many", and gives the same replies.

The objection has two parts: (a) if our Blessed Savior spoke of the sufficiency of His sacrifice, He should have said "for all", (b) if He spoke of the efficacy of His sacrifice, He should have just said "for many".

In the Summa, before he gets to his answer to objection 8, in his reply to objection 2 ( S. Th., III, q. 78, art. 3 ad 2), St. Thomas says"mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood". By the "fruits of the Passion", he means what the Passion accomplishes, i.e. its efficacy. This is the same terminology used in the Roman Catechism, quoted ealier in this thread here, here and here.

In his reply to objection 8 in the Summa, and objection 7 in His commentary, St. Thomas justifies our Lord's words by saying that our Lord's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles; not merely in those that receive Sacramentally, but also in those for whom the sacrament is offered. Since St. Thomas justifies our Lord's words by talking about the efficacy of His Sacrifice, it is evident that he believes that our Lord was Himself talking about the efficacy of His sacrifice.

The Angelic Doctor does not say that "for many" can mean "for all"; he explains why Jesus Christ said "for many" instead of "for all".

Summa Objection 8.

Further, as was already observed (48, 2; 49, 3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."

Commentary Objection 7:

"In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others."

Reply to Objection 8.

The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.

Reply to Objection 7.

To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy; and, lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others.

In the last paragraph of post #63, you seem to be presenting the objection that St. Thomas refutes as a view that he holds himself.

+++

If anyone objected that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, I was ready to point to the word-by-word translation from Aramaic available here.

+++

"so that sins may be forgiven" means that our Lord's passion made the forgiveness of sins possible. It does not mean maybe sins will be forgiven and maybe they won't, depending on the individual. The translation is ambiguous. So go back to the Bible. The Douay-Rheims has "unto remission of sins", matching what is printed in the Latin-English Booklet Missal (available here from the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei). The new American Bible has "for the forgiveness of sins", which, as of 2004, was going to be the wording in the new translation of the Mass.

About "pro multis" #2

Archive of more posts from the latest Catholic Answers Forum thread on pro multis:

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 I've said it before. I've NEVER heard a liberal say that all men were saved based on the "for all" translation in the canon. I've heard a myriad of reasons why liberals think all men are saved but that ain't one of them. So, who needs the commentary. You know all men aren't saved, right? The only people who bring this up is the occaisional traditionalist (note I didn't in anyway say all traditionalists). I even doubt you beloved Bugnini has said this.

How about this blogger?

Quote:

The certainty is that if this is what the Church teaches, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I am not among "many." In my entire life I have never been on the winning team, and the Calvinists have already devised the tests for those who will make it and those who won't--I am in the latter category. If this change comes about, and it sounds certain that it will, I will be reminded at every Mass of my exclusion from those for whom Jesus came. I will accept this as the teaching of the Church because I know the Church is the guardian of the truth...

Apparently, this person has not previously heard, or has not believed, that there will be a Judgment, when some will be saved and others damned.

For the above-quoted blogger, fixing the words of consecration will cause him to start worrying about damnation. Why would that be?

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsorama Ha, well, you haven't arrived in blogdom if you haven't been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I'm not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don't see how that's controversial, and it's certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

Thanks for adding that last paragraph of explanation in your blog entry. It still leaves me wondering what you mean, though. You say you and your correspondent "would like to see the correct translation in the Mass, one that derives from the literal sense of Scripture". What Jesus said literally at the Last Supper is that He would shed His blood "for many". You seem to be indicating, however, that you want to take what Jesus said literally at some other time, paraphrase it, and then pretend our Lord literally said that paraphrase at the Last Supper.

Jesus said what He said. The traditional teaching of the Church is that Jesus was talking about those who would actually be saved when He said He was shedding His blood "for many". You can read this in the section of the Roman Catechism which Giuseppe quoted. You can also see this, if you read the gospel record of our Lord's words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:20-35, Mark 14:18-25, Luke 22:14-39, and especially John 13-17, where our Lord is quoted at greater length). Jesus speaks to and for his faithful followers, not the world at large:
"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me ... I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you".(John 17:9,20,21)

The Roman Catechism says "the many" refers to the elect. At the Last Supper our Lord talks about how the elect should act and what they should expect:
Let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant (Luke 22:26)
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. (John 13:34)

When He does talk about the world at the Last Supper, it is not in terms of having come to save the world:
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you." (John 15:18-19)

What you will not find at the Last Supper accounts is Jesus saying that He came to save the whole world. This is not to deny the truth of whosebob's quote from 1 John, it is just that in these quotes, Jesus and John were teaching different lessons.


P.S. tsorama, is your correspondent Scott Carson?

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dancelittleewok I am not sure I understand the issue here. Jesus did die for all of humanity, not just some it of it. If he only died for some, then do we need another Savior?

The issue is, what did Jesus say at the Last Supper, when the wine became His Precious Blood? You can read the Gospels in a large number of different translations, both Catholic and Protestant, and consistently see that Jesus said He was shedding His Blood "for many". The Roman Catechism says that Jesus deliberately said "for many" rather than "for all". The new Mass in Latin, like the traditional Mass before it, says that Jesus said "for many". The Divine Liturgies of the east and the saints of both east and west say that Jesus said "for many". But the ICEL translators changed our Lord's words to "for all", and a variety of false and contradictory justifications have been offered over the years for the change.

It now appears that the Holy Father will insist on an accurate translation of our Lord's words in the consecration, and that has caused a bit of excitement amoung some.

The one Savior is sufficient, but unfortunately, due to the perverse willfulness of man, not all are saved.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas's reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

It would be helpful to be able to read the whole article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988 St. Thomas described that it could indeed mean that Christ's blood was shed for all. While admittedly this is an incorrect translation of 'pro multis,' it is a theologically correct intepretation, depending upon if one has in mind sufficiency, not efficacy. Quote: "In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others." [In 4 Sent., dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, obj. C:7.] St. Thomas replies to an objection: Quote: "To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy; and, lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others.[ibid.] Thus, the effect or "fruit" of the shedding of Christ's blood is given to all those who the effect of the sacrament reaches, either by partaking of the Eucharist or through prayers offered on the behalf of others.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDunphy Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas's reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas has a similar paired objection and reply:
Objection 8. Further, as was already observed (48, 2; 49, 3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."
...
Reply to Objection 8. The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.

According to St. Thomas, our Lord said "for many" because he was talking about the efficacy of His sacrifice. People may object that He should have said "for all", but what He did say is "for many".

This is clearer in the Fathers St. Thomas quotes in his Catena Aurea.

For Matthew 26:28, he quotes Remigius:
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

For Mark 14:24, Pseudo-Jerome:
It goes on: “Which is shed for many.”
Pseudo-Jerome: For it does not cleanse all.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Mike, take a sarcasm pill an re-read. BTW, it seems that you also didn't notice and failed to copy the last part in which this blogger friend says: Quote: Many cheered the translation precision of "for many" for the phrase "pro multis" which in turn is a translation from the Greek for "the multitude," which, without any stretch of the imagination means, "all." What is even more odd is that this translation is applauded without reference to its following restrictive clause--"that sins may be forgiven." This phrase restricts the meaning of the "for you and for all," it gives the purpose of this sacrifice--"That sins may be forgiven."...Now, perhaps if Jesus has said, "so that all might be saved," we'd have a good argument. But what He said is "so that all might be forgiven." The might be is not contingent upon the efficacy of the sacrifice but upon the resistance of the individual person

As you suggest, I misread the part I quoted; I read it as flakey rather than sarcastic. I did see the second part, but omitted it since I didn't think it added much. But since you mention it...

Pro multis means "for many", not "the many". The "the" that the unnamed blogger thinks is before "many" or "multitude" does not exist. And many does not mean all. Philip Goddard, in an excellent little article on pro multis and περι πολλων writes:

Quote:

in Liddell and Scott's standard Greek Lexicon, the article on πολλων extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning "all".

In the second paragraph, the blogger starts out interpreting "that sins may be forgiven" in way consistent with other translations of Matthew 26:28, namely that "it gives the purpose of this sacrifice". For comparison, see the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims. But then at the end he puts an emphasis on the word may, as if Jesus had said that sins may or may not be forgiven. That is an ambiguity in English due to the wording selected by the ICEL translators of the Mass. The two translations I just mentioned do not have that ambiguity. People can also check this word-by-word translation from the Greek to see that the blogger is placing considerable weight on a word that does not exist in the original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Also, if you notice he links to Amy Welborn, Curt Jester and many more solidly Catholic sites. He's hardly a liberal who thinks all saved.

For what he writes that is good and true, I applaud him. But he still has some errors in his thinking about what pro multis means.

+++

I skipped over tsorama's "so that all might be forgiven", quoted by bear06 above, guessing that it was merely a typo, but I wonder if the blogger wrote it deliberately, as a paraphrase put into quotes.

tsorama himself showed up and chimed in:

Ha, well, you haven't arrived in blogdom if you haven't been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I'm not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don't see how that's controversial, and it's certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

For a nuanced look at "pro multis", see this.

This is Scott Carson's blog. I found tsorama's blog though his link to Scott Carson's "nuanced look", where in a nuanced way, Scott says:

I do agree with you that it is, of course, possible that not all will make it to heaven. That is also a logical possibility. But since we do not know for a fact that not all will, while we do know for a fact that God wills that all make it...

I wonder whether Scott is the unnamed blogger that tsorama says is not a universalist. He doesn't assert universalism, but he does not deny it, either.

I started commenting on this post a few weeks ago, and then got sidetracked by this Catholic Answers Forums thread occuring at the same time. I hope Scott will allow new comments on an old post, because some of his remarks can and should be answered, or at least questioned.

περι των πολλων ?

From the comments in Father Z's blog on the repaired translation of pro multis:

‘If the Greek says “peri twn pollwn”, it will generally be rendered in Latin as “pro multis”, because there is no good way to translate the “the” into Latin.’

But the Greek does not say that. If you go to http://www.studylight.org/isb/ or http://www.unboundbible.org/ and look up Matthew 26:28 in various editions of the New Testament, you will consistently see our Lord recorded as having said He would shed His blood περι πολλων, not περι των πολλων. The “the” is not there in the Greek.

Catholic Answers Forums: About “pro multis”

In the latest Catholic Answers thread on the words of consecration,

USMC wrote:
The pro multis mistranslation was not a small thing. In addition to not being the words our Lord used...

bear06 replied with just an URL:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR46.HTM

Replying to the contents of the page, I wrote:

Despite the errors and evasions of the web page referenced above, if one reads the whole thing carefully, one will see:
(1) At the Last Supper, our Lord said that He was shedding His blood "for many", not "for all".
(2) The new Mass in its normative Latin form records that our Lord said He was shedding His Blood "for many", not "for all".
(3) The translators, nevertheless, claim that our Lord said He was shedding His blood "for all", not "for many".

The rest of the commentary on the page is erroneous, irrelevant, or absurd. Notice the claim that the Qumram community adopted the word "many" as a label ("almost a name") for their own small group. How is this an argument in favor of "many" meaning everyone in the world? If anything, using the word "many" to signify a very small group of people is an argument against using that same word to signify every single human being. A little group of people is not all people. Especially this little group. Google "Qumram" and read the first match. "The Qumram community has left a scroll which expresses the bitterest hatred of all that is not Jewish..." - I don't think they were identifying with the world at large.

The good news that Christ offers salvation to the whole world is worth repeating many times, but it doesn't address the question of what Christ actually said when bread and wine were first consecrated. Why couldn't He offer His sacrifice especially for those blessed souls who do enter into the new covenant? At the Last Supper our Lord said "I do not pray for the world, but for the ones you have given me".

The 1970 claim that the same "word" in Aramaic means both pro multis and pro omnibus is simply wrong, and the first 2004 article admits it -- in soft, fuzzy terms that may leave some with the impression that this is all a matter of nuance.

The second 2004 article admits that the "vast majority" of the "ancient Eucharistic Prayer texts" use "for many". It points out that a few omit these words, but neglects to mention that none of them substitute in "for all". I do have a bit more I could write, but I'll stop here with a note of agreement on one point. Fr. McNamara wrote:

Quote:
In no way is the doctrine of the 'Roman Catechism' to be held outdated.

The Roman Catechism teaches that Jesus deliberately did say "for many" and deliberately did not say "for all". If this doctrine is in no way to be held outdated, why is there any argument? Just fix the translation. I truly thank God that the Holy Father is going to make sure it does get fixed.

+++

Later in the thread, introibo wrote:

"What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, "for all" and "for many," are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole... There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone, and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy."

Ratzinger, Joseph A. God Is Near Us. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.


I replied:

Both "for all" and "for many" express aspects of our Lord's sacrifice, but before the consecration of the Precious Blood, the priest says:

Quote:
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Where in Scripture or Tradition is it recorded that our our Lord said at the Last Supper that He sheds His blood "for all"? Nowhere. Both attest that He said "for many". The translators confused translation with interpretation.

+++

My last comment was phrased carefully to match the part of the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger which introibo skipped:

I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation "for all" here and, thus to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation remains in any case indispensible.

The translators put their interpretation of our Lord's words into the consecration, but considering the teaching of the Roman Catechism on this matter, I don't believe the interpretation offered by the translators, namely that "for many" means "for all", is correct. Jesus said "for many" because He meant "for many". If we were not talking about Jesus actual words (which we are) I think it could be fairly said that Jesus died for the whole world, but here He was speaking specifically of the elect.