Loading ...
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down through the ‘Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V’ is to be held outdated?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.”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I laugh at the idea that we can mistranslate Latin on the basis of our hypothetical reconstruction of what Our Lord said in Hebrew or Aramaic. As far as we know, the only Gospel originally written in Aramaic was St. Matthew’s, which (correct me if I am mistaken) has not been preserved in the original. So, for all intents and purposes, all of the New Testament was written under divine inspiration in the Greek tongue. Hence, the so-called “exclusive” sense of “many” was what God intended to be recorded, not the so-called “ambiguous” Semitic word. When students in my class translate “multus” with “all” or “omnis” with “many,” they lose a full point. Same goes for the ICEL con artists — it’s elementary Latin.
It is rather bothersome. When I read the Vatican’s own justification from the above-mentioned ‘Notitiae,’ it bothered me that we don’t have any Aramaic texts to back that up. It’s an argument from silence and it never sat right with me.
BTW, yes, Tobias, Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic. St. Irenaeus records that. Plus, three very tiny fragments of said Gospel were found and are now at Magdalen or Oxford in England (I think Magdalen). It is not 100% verified that it is from Matthew’s Gospel, but evidence does support the theory.
I also hear that Jerome once wrote that Matthew’s original Aramaic Gospel was of much value to his Latin translation, but I haven’t seen the citation to prove it.
Peace!
-KJS
What ever happened to all the changes approved last year for the English mass: proper translations of the Et cum spiritu tuo, Credo, etc.
I’ve yet to see these changes implemented?
Kevin,
Bothersome?
Why don’t you join with 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and trust in St. Jerome’s translation - which the Church has infallibly declared to be the official translation.
Rather than taking this neo-Catholic / Protestant position requiring of each generation of Christians the need to rediscover for themselves the Christian mysteries.
For Pete’s sake, will discovering some Aramaic text give us some knowledge or understanding that the Church Father’s and 2000 years of saints lacked? How presumptious and arrogant can we be?
There’s no need to discover anything new. Jesus gave to his Apostles the entirety of the faith. We have nothing new to learn, only to rediscover the Catholic faith that was abandoned over the last 40 years.
No need to wait breathlessly for ancient manuscripts or for that matter for the latest Scott Hahn pop-theology book.
JSP, as I read Kevin’s point, he was agreeing with the proper translation “for many.” I asked a question about St. Matthew’s Gospel, and he answered it. So let’s not start slinging invectives when, as far as I can see, no one has said anything disagreeable, ‘kay? Pax Domini tecum.
A finely crafted title for this post, Ambrosi
JSP,
In your response to KS, you have stated
“Why don’t you join with 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and trust in St. Jerome’s translation - which the Church has infallibly declared to be the official translation.[sic]“
While the Vulgate was declared the official translation, I am not aware that this was pronounced ex cathedra or that any measure of infallibility other than the general infallibility of the Church.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I caution against rampant assumption of infallibility.
Prosit
Prosit
2000 years of consensus by the ordinary universal magisterium equates to infallibility. This is one of the forms of infallibility.
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/conservative.asp
Ex cathedra is the least common form. But for Novus Ordo Catholicism, since it is unhinged from 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, all it has is the ex cathedra doctrines — it has lost confidence or abandoned many of the other traditions that fell under the ordinary universal magisterium. Yet, on the other hand, we’re told that the ordinary universal magisterium must be respected when it comes to a whole whopping 40 years of such novelties as modern ecumenism, a changed understanding of Judaism, the embrace of the Novus Ordo Missae with all its potential dangers for the faith…
http://fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html
Another take, Ambrosi, on the flip-flops over the “pro multis” question.
Hopefully the ‘Mystery of Christ’ acclamation will be fixed next. The words are supposed to refer to the mystery of Christ’s body and blood on the altar, but have been converted into a totally different meaning related to the end times when Jesus will come again.
I read the link to Robert Sungenis’ critique of Christopher Ferrara on this issue. The one thing you can say about Ferrara is that you always know where he stands, and he is quite adroit. As for Sungenis — well, he tends to over-compensate for what he imagines to be his past sins of disobedience to the Pope. If you read the articles, Ferrara refers to the translation of “pro multis” as “for all” as an “error.” This it clearly is — it is a simple error of translation, with some unwelcome theological ramifications. Nothing that invalidates the Mass, nothing unambigously contrary to Catholic teaching, but objectionable and scandalous nonetheless. Then Sungenis claims that Ferrara is actually causing a *worse* scandal himself by calling the mistranslation a “theological error” (!). After all, Cardinal Arinze didn’t call the mistranslation an error or scandal, did he? And we mustn’t use “private judgment,” should we?
Now, with someone like Sungenis, you have to use the words “error” and “mistake” extremely carefully, because for him (apparently) they mean only “theological,” dogmatic errors. (And, in his view, the Pope is even incapable of making harmful disciplinary decrees!) After all, Sungenis faults Ferrara for calling the mistranslation an error since the document from Cardinal Arinze doesn’t call it an error or scandal. Well, then, if we’re playing this game of “you are forbidden from drawing any inferences beyond the explicit wording of the text” (sola scriptura, anyone?), then Sungenis himself is in the wrong, since Ferrara never specified that the mistranslation was a “theological” error! Sungenis confuses strict theological wording (in which “error” is one step below heresy) and normal English usage (an error is a mistake, an act of malfeasance, etc.). And, after all, the Curia is a human bureaucracy — if they can correct mistakes (for you don’t correct good things, Bob!) without having to specify who’s to blame or allot responsibility, they won’t. So of course they aren’t going to say that “pro multis” was an error or scandal unless they absolutely have to.
And, in any case, we all — as Catholics! — exercise “private judgment” all the time. That’s the major part of prudence. I don’t mean that we make up the criteria for judgment — we get that from right reason and the Church. But we do draw inferences and decide *which confessor is trustworthy or not* (so you can’t say “who needs a brain when you have a good confessor”), which devotion to propagate, when to seek redress for an abuse, etc. So unless someone uses “private judgment” to *contradict* the Church’s teaching, I don’t see how one can simply dismiss a critique as “private judgment” and leave it at that.
So, since he doesn’t convey Ferrara’s actual point, which is more subtle than Sungenis’ categories allow, Sungenis himself draws down upon himself the criticism he lodged in the first place! And that’s why one needs to be very, very careful when it comes to accepting what Sungenis writes.
On the plus side, Ferrara quotes neo-Catholics who dismiss the Roman Catechism since it was not an official document of the Council of Trent and no one ever said it was infallible. Phew! Since the exact same is true of the new “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” I now feel free(r) to (continue) dismiss(ing) that book when I find something objectionable. After all, that book came out long after the *non-infallible* Vatican II and likewise has never been declared to be infallible. “The standard by which you judge is the standard by which you shall be judged.”
“So of course they aren’t going to say that “pro multis” was an error or scandal unless they absolutely have to.”
By which I meant the mistranslation of “pro multis.”
Your article says with authority the “All” in the consecration did not invalidate the Mass. How do You know that! St.Thomas said it did if You read Him right! The Mystery of Faith change to a different meaning also invalidates that Harlot bastard “Mess”! The Apoc.says from the Holy Ghost “Go out of Her or You will take on Her Sins”. Jump ship my dear Catholics V2 [the Harlot] is directed by Satan and His legions. Wake Up. May Our Lady of Good Success pray for Us in these Latter Days of the Harlot,the Whore of Babylon,the V2 Church of Satan! I have studied the Masonic conspiracy for 40 yrs. and I can tell You V2 and her foul n.o. “mass’,her every action is directed by enemies of God and Man. “GO OUT OF HER”
“Andrew,” you will find no sympathy here. We are not sedevacantists, and have no desire to become one.
Andrew, here is a traditionalist defense of the validity of the Novus Ordo: http://www.geocities.com/adam_todm/
newmassintro.html
I assure you, Adam Miller is no fan of Vatican II or of Freemasonry. Yet, he knows better than to deny the validity of the Novus Ordo. Please read.
Tobias for thg love of God wake up! Montini was a “Monster” antichrist,from a “Marrano”family of commie devils! His brother fought on the side of Lucifer in the Spanish “Civil” war! He wore the Ephod of the Sanhedrin,and instituted the foul “Mess” on
April 3 1969…Passover! Go out of Her.St.Pius X said the Modernist should be “Beaten with Fists” a true soldier of Christ. Bugnini authored the Evil entity You dare equate with the Holy Ghost.
Andrew, any further insults to Holy Mother the Church will be met with your obscene remarks being deleted.
My,Tobias You equate Truth with obscenity. You have it reversed. Christ talked and acted tough and with vigor as You must know with the apostate Jews. Have You read Pascendi? I hope You are not brainwashed OTO style to truly harbor a secret distaste for the infallable work of the great Saint. He pulled no punches! The Beast is in control of the V2 church,lock stock and barrel,period. What would You say to Our Lady of LaSalette who said “ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST”. Obscene,Tobias? No.Love of the highest order! A warning for those “Who can See”. Funny,the mortal enemies of Holy Mother Church know and have bragged about their revolution in and over the Vatican,but You choose not to admit it. What I said before about Montini is not only public record but OBVIOUS,GO OUT OF HER,TOBIAS,and fast. Start at traditionalmass.org.
JMJ
Andrew
Well, I guess I don’t know how to delete posts, it turns out. Anyone care to help? Or shall we let this one last post of Andrew’s slide?