Pro Multis.....

[Cam42]

The Vatican has finally told the English speaking world to translate Latin properly....

[quote name='CWNews.com'] 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, 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


1) 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.
2) The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
3) 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.
4) “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
5) 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.
6) In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.[/quote]
[url="http://cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719"](SOURCE)[/url]

For those of us who a) understand Latin and 2) are Liturgical geeks, have one word for ICEL and their supporters.........


















































DUH!!!!!

[Resurrexi]

Thank God!

[curtins]

who botched the translation in the first place?

[Veritas]

+

It's about time.

[curtins]

2nd year high school latin student here could figure out that pro multis is for many not for all


for all would be pro omnibus???

[Cam42]

[quote name='curtins' post='1123734' date='Nov 19 2006, 02:37 PM']
who botched the translation in the first place?
[/quote]


ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy)......

In other words, Liberal Catholic thinktank/focus group.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1124737' date='Nov 20 2006, 07:36 PM']
ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy)......

In other words, Liberal Catholic thinktank/focus group.
[/quote]
ah ... I was wondering what ICEL was from your first post.

[curtins]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1124737' date='Nov 20 2006, 09:36 PM']
ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy)......

In other words, Liberal Catholic thinktank/focus group.
[/quote]


n00bs

[Era Might]

[quote]Both formulations, "for all" and "for many," are found in Scripture and tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation "for all" here and, thus to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation remains in any case indispensible. There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.

--Joseph Ratzinger, "God Is Near Us"[/quote]

[Myles Domini]

There's no need for citations Era this isn't an argument and desiring an accurate vernacular rending of the Latin text of the Holy Mass should not turn into one either. This is a step in the right direction from my standpoint and I'm pleased by this news. Only thing I could've asked for is for the Vatican's tone to become a little more definite. The whole "one or two years" thing sounds like what you say to someone when you want them to do something but it doesn't matter if they're a little late. Na uh, lets grease those wheels people. Two years max! :

[Era Might]

I think a citation was in order, lest the Holy Father's views be misrepresented. He has defended the translation "for all" in the past, but left open the question of whether or not it was desireable to introduce interpretation in the context of translation.

In other words, this decision by the Holy See certainly isn't a condemnation of "for all", which has always been legitimately approved by the Holy See. It is, rather, a modification of translation where interpretation was introduced.

But, let's keep in mind that "there can be no question of misrepresentation" in either formulae. Both remain legitimate, orthodox, and valid.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]In other words, this decision by the Holy See certainly isn't a condemnation of "for all", [/quote]

Yes it is.

[quote]which has always been legitimately approved by the Holy See.[/quote]

Well let's look at the Scriptures, what do they say?

[quote name='St. Matthew Ch. 26; Vs. 28']
Bíbite ex hoc omnes. 28 Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testaménti, qui [color="#FF0000"]pro multis[/color] effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum.

Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed [color="#FF0000"]for many[/color] unto remission of sins.[/quote]

[quote name='St. Mark Ch. 14; Vs. 24']
24 Et ait illis : Hic est sanguis meus novi testaménti, qui [color="#FF0000"]pro multis[/color] effundétur.

24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed [color="#FF0000"]for many[/color]. [/quote]

It is obviously "for many." I think the Douay-Rheims translators would know better than you what the translation should be. The Church has always translated it as "for many" until recently, when heterodox scholars translated the Mass into English. Please give me a Pre-1960 approval of the words "pro multis" being tranlsated as "for all" or even one from Post-1960.

[quote]It is, rather, a modification of translation where interpretation was introduced.[/quote]

Are you kidding me?

[quote]But, let's keep in mind that "there can be no question of misrepresentation" in either formulae. [/quote]

The other was misinterpreted. end of story.

[quote]Both remain legitimate, orthodox, and valid.[/quote]

No, "for all" is illigitimate, heterodox and only valid when speaking how the Sacrament consecrated just before these words are spoken (i. e. when the priest says "This is the Chalice of my Blood") is valid, regardless of how these words are incorrect.

[cappie]

To their Eminences /Excellencies,
Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences]
CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO
ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
Prot. n. 467/05/L
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:
1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation “for all”, “per tutti”, or equivalents.
[b]2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2). [/b]
3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” ([Greek word transliterated as polloin])) 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.
b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
c. 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.
d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
e. 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.
f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
4. The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.
With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,
Devotedly Yours in Christ,
Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1123480' date='Nov 18 2006, 11:57 PM']
Thank God!
[/quote]
Thank God that crisis is over!!!

Edited November 21, 2006 by notardillacid

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1124878' date='Nov 21 2006, 01:21 AM']
Are you kidding me?
[/quote]
He's correct. The translators probably were translating while interpreting the passage to refer to objective redemption (which was "for all") rather than subjective redemption (which is "for many").