[1]“For all” to “for many” Posted on 11/18/2011 7:00:45 AM PST by NYer
[1]“For all” to “for many”
Of all the changes in the new translation, two small words used by the priest at the consecration are evoking the most questions. Those two words are “for many.”
Currently, the priest refers to Jesus’ blood as having redemptive value “for all”:
“This is the cup of My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins…”
But as of November 27, the new translation replaces the words “for all” with “for many.”
Some have raised concerns that the words “for many” limit the universal scope of Jesus’ saving mission. They hold that the revision implies that Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone—that he offered his blood on Calvary not “for all” but just for a select group of people, “for many.” This is a misunderstanding of the text.
First, we should happily note that the new translation renders more exactly Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. There our Lord said that His blood was shed “for many” (see Matthew 26:28). It is also more harmonious with the Latin text of the Mass, as has been used for centuries.
Above and beyond all else, the new translation points to the grievous reality that, although Jesus died for all, not everyone chooses to accept the gift of salvation. Every individual must choose, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to embrace salvation in Christ and live according to God’s grace, and so be counted among “the many,” the holy elect.
A number of Scripture scholars have observed that the particular language of the Last Supper recalls “the many” that are three times mentioned in Isaiah 53:11-12. In this prophecy, Isaiah foretold that God would eventually send His servant as “an offering for sin,” to bear the transgressions of “many” and making “many” righteous (Isaiah 53:10-12). Jesus, by speaking thusly of His own blood being poured out “for many,” consciously associated Himself with the Suffering Servant foreshadowed by Isaiah. Jesus is the One who offers His life for the “many.”
This must not be understood as contradicting the plain reality and ancient dogma of the Church that Jesus died “for all” (1 Timothy 2:6). Other prophecies in Isaiah concerning the Servant of the Lord make clear the universal scope of His mission: He is the One that announces salvation to all humanity (cf. Isaiah 42:1-10, 49:6, 52:10). In this context, the expression “the many” can be seen as contrasting the One person Who dies—the Suffering Servant (our Lord Jesus Christ)—with the multitude who benefit from His atoning sacrifice.
From “cup” to “chalice”
In closing, let us briefly consider one other change to the words of consecration: “This is the cup of my Blood” will soon become, “This is the chalice of my Blood.”
The choice to use “chalice” instead of “cup” reflects a formalized rendering of the Latin text. It underscores the solemn and sacred qualities of the liturgy. It also reminds worshipers that the bread and wine are no ordinary meal, but the Body and Blood of the Lord, offered in holy vessels set aside from daily use.
It is worth noting that VCII changed the original format from “for many” to “for all”. This is a necessary restoration of the authentic text. AFAIK, the Eastern Churches have always maintained “for many”.
I went to my favorite “Electric Church” this weekend. I’m trying go get my girls to know that even if we sing showtunes and everyone is talking, Jesus is still there.
Anyway, they introduced the new Missal this week, but the Priest still couldn’t muster up “Brothers and Sisters” instead of “Sisters and Brothers” nor the word “Father” throughout the mass. He was still saying “Loving God”. *sigh*
One step at a time, I guess.
Thank you for your posts, I always find them edifying.
However in this case I must make a correction:
It is worth noting that VCII changed the original format from “for many” to “for all”.
The Council did no such thing; even the regrettable Bugnini Novus Ordo Missae (which was promulgated AFTER the Council) retained "pro multis".
It was the execreable 1970 ICEL English translation of the Bugnini mass that gave us "for all".
I sympathize with having to endure an “Electric Church” mass - even though Jesus is still there. You refer to show tunes - I call ours “ditties”.
One step at a time as you rightly pointed out!!
Alleluia - they finally realized that pro multis means for many -not ALL!! Good bye implications of the false teaching that there is universal salvation. Thank you Lord!! (I am attempting slight sarcasm here - “they” knew the correct translation all along and chose to ignore it.)
You are inspiring me by reminding me that patience is a virtue and we must be patient.
Does that have something to do with Bishop Trautman of Erie’s leadership - the 1970’s “excreable” English translation? Trautman was in grammar school with my mother in law in Buffalo back in the day. She is also very into the popular translation/novus ordo type of mass. I wonder why Buffalo was forming catholics so ready to discard tradition and go with weaker modern trends? I know this wasn’t limited to Buffalo of course, but I always wonder about the roots of shaky ideas in the Church.
Bells and whistles change but essence doesn't, so what's all the hubbub, bub?
Lex orandi, lex credendi -- we believe as we pray. Moreover, the concept of a "catholic"/universal Church is undermined when the United States is praying a different Mass than those prayed in the rest of the world (which got far more accurate translations of the Latin).
So yes, the words are important.
Yes, Bishop Trautman believes that we are too stupid to learn what “ineffable” means.
As to the roots, as you ask: You’ll think I’m nuts but I believe that there was a deliberate effort by internal enemies to weaken the liturgy, and by extension, the church itself.
I attended my first Extraordinary Form mass this summer, and felt like I was being served a nutritious spiritual meal after a lifetime of being sustained by baby food.
We’ve been forty years in the desert and I hope our travails are coming to an end. We shall see.
(BTW thanks for the spelling correction - I should never trust myself to get an infrequently used word correct without a quick check of the dictionary.)
My point is that going to Communion is WHY we really go there, to actually eat and drink the Body and Blood of God, as Jesus TOLD us to do. The rest OUGHT to be simply bells and whistles. I know, though, what you mean.
Do you really think that more or less people will attend Mass because of the re-direction of a few words in the Mass? I dunno.
The problem with people like Bishop Trautman is they ignore the fact that the Eastern Catholic eparchies have been using translations in the style of the new one since Vatican II.
I don’t think too many people have lost sleep over it. Back in the 1990s, the Ruthenian bishops dropped the filioque and there was some consternation among the older parishioners. But it blew over.
The same was true when they changed Mother of God to Theotokos.
It will blow over, and Bp. Trautman’s worried will be disproven.
I don’t think you are the least bit nuts - I am sure that the church was infiltrated. Read the book “Aa- 1025 The Memoirs of an anti Apostle” by Carie Carre, a French nun.
Also read Malachi Martin’s books, especially Windswept House.
The Novus Ordo distortions to the liturgy were deliberate and proposed to weaken the faith - and they were successful.
I attended my first Latin Tridentine mass about 10 years ago and realized that all of the masses I had attended prior to that were pale imitations. I was born in 1960 so basically just remember the Novus Ordo - so this is not nostalgia - this is reality. I was actually angry that I had been denied my inheritance of witnessing the true mass. I felt I had been given stones instead of bread. And then the glaring doctrinal weaknesses and pop psychology that passed for catechesis - sorry to get started ...
The Latin language is precise, orderly and every word serves its logical purpose and it should not have been messed around with.
Sorry if I seem to rant - I am always pleased to find a kindred spirit and so I get a bit worked up. So many don’t get it. I am not a sedevacantist - I do believe the new mass is valid - but barely sometimes. The smoke of Satan had entered the Church, as one of the post conciliar popes pointed out. Satan won’t prevail, of course, but these are difficult times indeed.
They hate to let go. It means they have lost this battle. I cant’t get over their love affaire with flat and banal wording. The NAB translation has the same failings. Its translaters hated the pithy and the poetic. As a lector I hated trying to read the run-on sentences in Paul’s letters. The odd thing is that Msgr Knox had the same translators philosophy as they did, but his translation of the Bible is so much better, and retains the traditional tone. The American bishops use the NAB instead of the RSV, I guess, Only because they own the copyright.
When the Mass was all in Latin (and I used to go to Mass even though I wasn't Catholic, because we traveled a lot in Central America and the Caribbean where no Anglican church was available) you could follow via the very reverent and accurate translation in the old St. Joseph's Missal, and there was no question that what was being said was 'set apart and holy', seeing as it was in a special language reserved for the Mass!
In the execrable 1970 translation -- instead of a special and holy language -- there is dumbed-down, colloquial, horizontal (instead of vertical) language as though the Mass had been re-written to enhance the self-esteem of slightly dull 8th-graders. Over time, that produces a feeling that what's going on here is not particularly elevated, involves more self-congratulatory "we are church" rather than worship of God, and is, ultimately, not that important.
You can see horrible examples posted from time to time at Father Z's website, What does the prayer really say?. He specializes in comparing a 'slavishly literal translation', the 1970 translation, and the new, improved translation. Sometimes it is downright embarrassing to see what a travesty the old translation made of the Latin, and it all moves in one direction -- towards 'dumbing down', removing concepts of sacrifice, sin, humility, and penance, and adding a lot of self-congratulatory fluff.
Over time, that's had a bad effect on Catholics (along with the lack of good catechesis for, oh, 40 years or so.) Correcting the translations will start trending things back in the other direction. It won't undo all the bad stuff in the twinkling of an eye . . . but you have to start somewhere, and starting with the words we hear every Sunday is probably as good a place as any.
The creators of the New Mass had the fault of reformers given their head. They totally lack empathy with others, they don’t know when to stop but indulge every craving. Besides, they wanted to make it as much like the Lutheran service as possible, or at least so it seems. Half-baked ecumenism. A few bows to the Easter Churches, but few, oddly enough, to the English liturgical tradition.
Compared to the Douay (which is quite similar in translation and tone to the KJV/Authorized Version, just more Latinized) it's just an abomination. No other way to describe it. It clunks and clanks like an antiquated piece of farm machinery held together with baling wire.
My daughter started lectoring at our 6:30 pm Mass (as a sub for me) at 10-years-old. I would go through the readings and put in commas to show her where to pause when she would practice.
Sometimes there were more commas than periods!
Yes, indeed. The older translations were MEANT to be read aloud, the NAB is not. Of course, it is hard to scan silently, too. Just badly written. Bill Buckley once said it was the worst translation he had ever read. This from a master of the language.
Maybe, maybe not. If the liturgical abuses extend to invalid sacraments, I'd say not.
>>Maybe, maybe not. If the liturgical abuses extend to invalid sacraments, I’d say not. <<
This is true, but I know enough about abuses vs. innovations.
If we, by chance, attend a mass with abuses so bad that I feel it is invalid, we are blessed to have a Sunday 8:30pm at our home parish. We just pack up and go later.
We have such a reverent and complete Holy Mass at my parish, that my daughters would participate elsewhere and state that they wanted to go to that later Mass at home. I have to teach them that holding hands and Altar girls do not make an invalid Mass. However, walking into a parish with brown, flaky bread IS invalid.
It teaches them humility to understand that eventhough they didn’t “enjoy” the Mass, it’s really not about them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.