While we here at the Society for a Good Time are as pleased as anyone that the correct translation of pro multis as “for many”, rumors of which we previously reported, will now be compulsory, we thought it might be instructive to take our readers back a bit to remind them of how everyone but traditionalists defended the “for all” translation. And while these folks were right to claim that the phony “for all” translation didn’t invalidate the Mass, they weren’t spending much time pointing out how dumb a translation it was, either.

So, let’s look at a couple of notable examples.

First of all, we turn to ICEL themselves, who explain,

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possesses a word for ‘all’. The word rabbim or “multitude” thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and Latin appear to have an exclusive sense, i.e., ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’.

Your tithes at work!

Next, we recall a statement given by Catholics United for the Faith, Iacobus’ favorite organization:

“For all” is a legitimate translation of “pro multis,” and points to the profound truth that through the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5), salvation “is offered to all” (Catechism, nos. 618, 1368).

We also have Zenit’s Father Edward McNamara, archived by EWTN, recalling the Vatican’s own 1970 justifications for “for all”:

From the Notitiae
The query states:
“In some vernacular versions the words of the formula for the consecration of the wine ‘pro multis’ are translated in the following way: in English ‘for all men’; in Spanish ‘por todos’ and in Italian ‘per tutti.’

“The following is asked:

“a) Is there a good reason, and if there is, what is it, for deciding on such a variation?

“b) Whether the doctrine regarding this matter handed down through the ‘Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V’ is to be held outdated?

“c) Whether the versions of the above-mentioned biblical text are to be held less appropriate?

“d) Whether in the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text something less correct crept in, and which now requires correction or amending?

“Response: The above variation is fully justified:

“a) According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated ‘pro multis,’ means ‘pro omnibus’: the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all. St. Augustine will help recall this: ‘You see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations? They are very ungrateful for their price, or very proud, who say that the price is so small that it bought the Africans only; or that they are so great, as that it was given for them alone.’ (Enarr. In Ps. 95, n. 5)

“b) In no way is the doctrine of the ‘Roman Catechism’ to be held outdated: the distinction that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many, still holds its value.

“c) In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment.”

Followed by a longer argument, which concludes with this unfortunate passage,

“This brings us now to another question: Why therefore in our liturgical version this venerable original ‘pro multis’ should yield to the phrase ‘pro omnibus’? I respond: because of a certain accidental but true inconvenience: the phrase ‘for many’ — as it is said — in our minds (not forewarned) excludes that universality of the redemptive work which for the Semitic mind could be and certainly was connoted in that phrase because of the theological context. However, the allusion to the theology of the Servant of Yahweh, however eloquent for the ancients, among us is clear only to the experts.

“But if on the other hand it is said that the phrase ‘for all’ also has its own inconvenience, because for some it might suggest that all will actually be saved, the danger of such an erroneous understanding is estimated to hardly exist among Catholics.
“Besides, the change which the words of the consecration underwent was not unique nor the first. For the traditional Latin text already combines the Lucan text ‘pro vobis’ with the phrase of Mark and Matthew ‘pro multis.’ And that is not the first change. For already the liturgy of the early Church (Mark-Matthew) seems to have adjusted the saying over the chalice to the formula pronounced over the bread. For originally that formula of the chalice according to Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) and Luke (22:20) was: ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ — a formula which was excellent perhaps in depth, but not really in clarity.

“It is clear how the Church of the Apostles was not interested in preserving the very voice of the Lord even in the words of the consecration, certainly cited for the first time as such by Jesus himself.”

go to main page