Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Catholic World News ^ | Nov 18, 2006 | CWNews

[lrslattery]

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.

---

Glossary Terms: Congregation for Divine Worship

---

[livius]

Our bishop here just sent out a letter instructing the priests to follow the guidelines on purification of the vessels. The priests, of course, were objecting and wondering if they really "had to" do it. (Like it's such a burden.)

I think a lot of it is going to depend on how much the bishop enforces it; as you say, expect zilch from Gumbleton, but Cdl Maida will probably be a different story. It will be interesting to see if the dread USCCB makes any statements on this, although I have a sense that they are losing power, fortunately.

[NYer]

"For many" is also the phrase used in the Divine Liturgy of +James, the most ancient of all extant Liturgies (Its used only in Jerusalem and I have heard once a year in some other places)and dates from as early as 60 AD. I'd say that "for many" has a pretty good pedigree.

I like that :-)

The Maronites have never abandoned "pro multis" in their liturgies, be it the Anaphora of St. James or any one of the other 12 now celebrated. Words have meaning. Thank you, Pope Benedict XVI, for settling this once and for all.

[the invisib1e hand]

gee, when are they gonna tackle the apparently "optional" "men" in "for us men and for our salvation..."

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "God for the Pope. He'll get you guys back on track! :)"

When you guys get a patriarch, or a council, that admits that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of divorcing and marrying up to three times is nothing but a man-made tradition that violates scripture let me know, okay?

[ducdriver]

Probably not - they will first have to study it for a dozen years.

[bornacatholic]

But, the earth will end

[bornacatholic]

Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.

[dsc]

"in the next one or two years."

Why not now, now, now? Even parishes that don't have e-mail have telephones, or at least mailboxes.

[Kolokotronis]

"When you guys get a patriarch, or a council, that admits that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of divorcing and marrying up to three times is nothing but a man-made tradition that violates scripture let me know, okay?"

We've known that since the 8th century when the rules changed, Vlad.

[AnAmericanMother]

Maybe the old Anglican translation -- "being of one substance with the Father" -- would be a worthy version.

[Frank Sheed]

Father Zuhsldorf if ecstatic. Note the last line please:

Prot. n. 467/05/L
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 2:44 pm

Let us remember with fondness this Protocol Number:

Prot. n. 467/05/L

Here is something very important in the letter His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze wrote to the bishops (conferences) through the whole world. My emphasis.

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Eminence / 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 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 Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:...



This is not the decision of either the CDWDS or the CDF. This was the Pope’s decision. As I have written elsewhere, the translations of sacramental forms are reserved to the Pope alone.

We find this in the Holy See’s official instrument of promulgation, Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 28 February 1974 (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99). Here we find a circular letter dated 25 October 1973 over the signature of then Secretary of State Jean Card. Villot, countersigned by Archbp. Annibale Bugnini (my translation from the Latin): “The Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself the power of approving directly all translations into vernacular languages of the formulas of sacraments.”

There is no appeal against this decision.

[AnAmericanMother]

What is it with Mahoney?

Does he have photographs of somebody in a compromising position, or what? He seems to do whatever he likes and never suffer any consequences.

[Frank Sheed]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/if-pro-multis-then-why-not-also/

[livius]

I don't know what his secret is. Except that he was involved with everybody who was anybody in the heresy circuit (Bernardin, Weakland, etc.). And I think the ones who are still with us and haven't gotten into undeniable personal scandals that forced them to resign are probably more powerful and more deeply infiltrated than one wishes to admit. Things only get to the Pope after they have gone through the filtering system, so to speak, and I'm sure Roger's cronies make sure nothing gets through.

That said, I was really stunned at how fast this got out: I was at our bishop's mass this morning, and he said "for many," even though the new translation is not out and it is not yet mandatory. Some people don't seem to understand how important this is, but it is obviously something that is important not only in itself but in terms of what it says about the individual priest and his attitudes.

[Unam Sanctam]

I can see the headlines in New York Times, Boston Globe, etc.: "Non-inclusive Catholic Church says not everyone saved, consigns some to hell."

[nickcarraway]

You didn't read my post.

[vladimir998]

Changed from what to what?

There are still Eastern Orthodox Churches allowing people to divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry yet again.

[Kolokotronis]

Vlad, the rule that there could be no divorce save for adultery was done away with in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 8th century when the first law on divorce in Christendom was promulgated. Relatively soon thereafter, after a period of resistance, the eastern Patriarchs and their synods as well as several of the smaller Churches (Cyprus for example)determined that since divorce was a reality in their society, the Church was put to a choice, refuse the sacraments to divorced people, including marriage, and thus foster sexual relations outside of marriage or allow bishops, in their sole discretion, the power to exercise "economia" and grant ecclesial divorces on the theory that sexual relations outside of marriage were a greater sin than remarriage after divorce. They set an outside limit of three marriages, no matter how the prior marriages had ended. The Church never said that divorce was alright or of no consequence. It is clearly sinful for the party at fault and remarriage is both sinful and non-scriptural, but sex outside of marriage is more so and Orthodoxy has always taught this. Second marriages are penitential in nature and form and third marriages are positively funereal.

The authority of a bishop to grant economia and thus an ecclesial divorce when compared to the Roman practice of annulment is instructive as to the different ways the Church in the East and the Church in the West look at the sacrament of marriage (and to an extent all sacraments). The Latin Rite marriage ceremony is, while clearly and fully sacramental, contractual in nature, the vows being the most obvious example of this and thus, as you know, the question of intent and consent become vital. The Orthodox, and so far as I know, the Byzantine Rite Catholic, marriage ceremonies contain no vows at all.

In any event, please don't think that Orthodoxy condones divorce or remarriage or thinks that by allowing these things as a matter of economia (and by the way, economia is not always granted or is granted to only one party) that sin isn't occurring.

[narses]

+

If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!

[Cicero]

Excellent news. But I notice that the bishops still have not put the more accurate translations of the liturgy announced earlier into effect. Bishop Trautman still calls the shots.

I imagine this will go into effect eventually, but the bishops, the liturgists, and the presses that print the missalettes will find numerous ways to delay it.

Fr. Neuhaus has some rather sharp comments on the Novus Ordo in the December issue of First Things. He says that some people call the 1969 rite "the Bugnini Mass," and call the "drastic reordering of the liturgical calendar" Bugnini time.