[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.
Thank you for that clarification.
Yes, and this applies to modernists/progressives even more so. They don't like those "ancient rites" and obscure dead languages", you know. They thought the Mass was offered for their personal entertainment value, or something.
OT Chat: Was just talking on the phone to my medical clinic while reading your comment. Current physician, a lady Catholic doctor from the Philippines is leaving so I had to find a new provider. Turns out the only one accepting my insurance is a Muslim lady doctor. Oh well, I generally get along with lady doctors of any religion for some reason, so she should be OK. At least she probably won't be asking stupid questions like "How's your sex life", or "What form of birth control do you and your wife use?". lol
The Anglican Liturgy uses “For Many” in both the 1928 and 1979 Books of Common Prayer.
The 1928 BCP is the finest English language liturgy ever written.
The idea that we need to be humble and recognize that mass is not required to be enjoyable because it is not about us is certainly true - it is about Jesus’ sacrifice.
However, a sense of the sacred at mass ought to be a basic right for all who are witnessing at the mass. It is sad that so many parishes conduct mass in a manner that is loud, secular and profane. Again - a sacred mass ought to be a basic right - we have truly come on a downward path that sometimes one needs to “offer up” one’s suffering during a loud noisy guitar mass or the like.
I am inspired by your example and I am going to try to be more humble and patient when annoyed by a liturgy, reminding myself that it is not about me.
Does the New American Bible have anything to do with this?
Remember that these translations are more true and accurate as to the Latin and Greek.
Don’t worry about it, folks, it’s true.
>>However, a sense of the sacred at mass ought to be a basic right for all who are witnessing at the mass<<
It should be, shouldn’t it.
But it isn’t that way.
I tell my children...
It’s like when little kids put on a play. They dress up, color on sheets to make backdrops, put in a ton of drama and look for cheers at the end.
It’s not Shakespeare, but it’s cute and we all applaud.
I’m sure that God the Father is looking down at these innovative masses and thinking they’re cute like that. Bless their hearts! They had 30 years of bad Catechesis, but they’re trying!
And thank you for the compliment. Lord love you!
Vatin II didn’t change it, ICEL did.
>>At least she probably won’t be asking stupid questions like “How’s your sex life”, or “What form of birth control do you and your wife use?”. lol <<
Ya got that right!!!!
The word “Father” is a mistranslation from the Latin. The word in Latin is “God”, not Father.
Father came from the U. S. Bishopos who dumbed down the liturgy thinking that we could not understand it. Instead they put in lots of declarative sentences telling God what to think and do.
We tell God what to think and do?
Look at the old translations — it is really sad that they got so mis-translated for us.
In the new translations you will have three things:
Longer sentences
A higher linguistic register
More true to form from the Latin translations!
Be happy!
It really is beautiful and will change the entire tone of the Mass to a prayerful one. Look and listen for these three things.
I think we will see more people coming back to the church. If you take your old missals with the Latin on one side and the English on the other side......what we will have is essentially what that English said.
It’s glorious. (I went to a workshop on this — see the previous posts about the three things to listen for.)
I asked Father Jeremy Driscoll who was on that Vox Clara team and did the workshop I attended about the NAB and the readings.
He said they are being reviewed, but he didn’t really make any guarantees.
Starting in Advent, though we will have the RNAB.
Since then, I feel SO very blessed at being fortunate enough to be able to receive Holy Communion every single day of my life.
What greater happiness could I ever have?
Newer translations? WHO CARES!? What are they compared to what Mass gives us?
That being shouted from the rooftops, I do hope that more people will go to Mass and if longer sentences, a higher linguistic register and more true to form from the Latin translation will bring them in, then let's go for it.
The dialog mass missals. Back in the day, I was translating what the priest was saying at mass without looking over at the English. Apart from that I didn’t know much Latin.
As a member of Eastern Orthodoxy, I would like to see the original words of consecration re-added to the mass.
or the Epiklesis, to use Greek.
“Changing these gifts by thy Holy Spirit, Amen, Amen, Amen.
Consider the NAB a starting or renewed belivers Bible.
For me, a good Bible is the Jerusalem Bible.
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.
