Over the past 37 years, English-speaking Catholics became accustomed to hearing a particular translation of the Latin text for the eucharistic prayer: “Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.”
Since 1985, the word men has been omitted, but never the word all. Now, however, as many bishops are mandating liturgy workshops to prepare their clergy to use the new third typical edition of the Roman Missal, formerly referred to as the Sacramentary, priests are being commanded to replace the word all. Among the many infelicities that the new English text, slated to become normative in Advent 2011, holds in store for Catholics is the replacement of the translation of the Latin “pro vobis et pro multis” that we have known since 1973 as “for you and for all [men]” with the newly proposed “for you and for many.”
Why is this happening?
I recently returned from an international meeting (the general chapter of the Order of Preachers) in Rome, where the Eucharist was celebrated in the many languages of the participants. I was particularly interested to note how the phrase “pro multis” was rendered. What I discovered, in brief, is that in German, the Eucharistic prayer says “for you and for all” (“für euch und für alle”); in Spanish the text is “for you and for all men” (“por vosotros y por todos los hombres”); in Italian the text is “for you and for all” (“per voi e per tutti”); and in French the text is “for you and for the multitude” (“pour vous et pour la multitude”), which evokes the great multitude of the apocalypse in Rv 7:9 and 19:6. In none of these translations of the Latin “pro multis” is there the implication, unmistakable in the proposed English translation “for many,” of a less-than-universal divine will for salvation in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. These translations, of course, were all made before the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was issued in 2001 by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.
Still, as recently as September 2010, the German bishops’ conference rejected the Roman request for a new translation. The conference explained that the present sacramentary was widely accepted by both priests and faithful—a fact of great merit—and that this reception must not be jeopardized by replacing “good German texts” with “unfamiliar new interpretations.”
Because the Latin language does not have articles, the phrase “pro multis” can be translated either as “for the many” or “for many.” In English, without the article, many is restrictive rather than universal, suggesting some—perhaps a handful, perhaps thousands, but certainly not a majority nor the totality of human beings.
In talking about the new Missal, many U.S. bishops have expressed the opinion that a literally exact translation of the Latin text will restore the depth of meaning of the Mass text. Really? In this case, a slavishly literal translation of the Latin looks very much like the kind of mistake that a Latin teacher would correct in the work of a high school student learning the ancient language. “Don’t be afraid to add the definite article if the words don’t make sense otherwise,” the teacher might well say.
Making Sense?
The words do not make sense. They run contrary to the church’s constant tradition of the universal salvific will of Christ. This has been expressed with perfect clarity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 605), which reads:
[Jesus] affirms that he came to “give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men [sic] without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”
There is no ambiguity in this explanation (and several similar texts might be cited from the Catechism). On the contrary, the need for such an explanation raises the alarm that the new Missal’s translation of “pro multis” as “for many” is simply too narrow theologically and would require a similar explanation.
Without one, the ecclesiological overtones of “for many” mirror a growing tendency among “restorationists” to reinvent the church as a faithful remnant of those untouched by the ravages of secularization and cultural change—those, in other words, who are perfectly comfortable in a pre-Vatican II world, preoccupied with its own sanctity and well-being. This runs counter, however, to the ecclesiology of the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” of Vatican II as expressed in its first statement of principle: “Christ is the light of the nations...and desires to bring to all humanity the light of Christ.... since the Church...is a sacrament—a sign and instrument of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race...” (No. 1).
In the May 1970 issue of Notitiae, the official periodical of the Vatican’s Congregation for Worship, the eminent Jesuit biblical scholar Max Zerwick gave an exegetical explanation for translating a Hebrew text that underlies Jesus’ words as “for all”:
Pro multis seems to have been used by Jesus himself. This is so because calling to mind the Suffering Servant who sacrifices himself, as in Isaiah, it is suggested that Jesus himself would fulfill what was foretold about the Servant of the Lord. The principal text in question is Isaiah 53:11b-12: “Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.”...
Therefore the formula pro multis [for many] instead of pro omnibus [for all] in our texts (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28; Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28) seems to be due to the intended allusion to the Suffering Servant whose work Jesus carried out by his death....
The Semitic mind of the Bible could see that universality connoted in the phrase “for many.” In fact that connotation was certainly there because of the theological context. Yet, however eloquent it was for ancient peoples, today that allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is clear only to experts.
Stilted English
The new English translation of the liturgical texts, which some claim to be more accurate and more faithful, is in fact expressed in English that is stilted, verbose and (as in the present case) theologically inadequate. What is lost especially is the matter of evangelization. The celebration of Sunday Mass is the most effective vehicle of evangelization for the greatest number of people. In many people’s lives, it is the one chance the church has to reach them and to awaken their faith. Do church leaders want to signal that the grace of Christ is available only to the regular, traditional churchgoer? Is their intention to leave out the rest? More and more it looks as if the covert message beneath the written text is one of effective exclusion rather than antecedent inclusion of all humanity in God’s will for salvation.
In general, the new Missal’s language is of no help here. At a conference held in Raleigh, N.C., last October, the St. Mary of the Lake workshop presenters offered as an example of a supposedly significant improvement in the translation of the Mass the following Collect (for Dec. 17):
Filled with the divine gift, Almighty God, we beg you to grant our desire that, enkindled by your Spirit, we may blaze like bright torches before the face of your Christ when he comes.
The Latin teacher mentioned above might well say to the translator, “Come on now, you can do better than that. Who talks like that?” Well, it appears we all will have to in a matter of months. Unless…
Examples of the coming changes to the Roman Missal are available from the U.S. bishops' conference. For more on America's coverage of the controversy click here. To read this article in Spanish click here.
I agree with the article. In general, it seems to me that most of the changes being imposed are either needlessly stilted or just plain needless. More important, the whole project seems to be part of a slightly devious effort aimed at mildly deflating the spirit of Vatican II. It is a small step in the wrong direction.
Mk 10:45: "the Son of man ... came ... to give his soul as a ransom for the many";
1 Tim 2:5: "the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all." Jesus words in Mk 14:24 say "for the many" but they mean "all."
A much broader expression, not just about the language, should be available.
I really don't have any problem at all with the new translation. I recall somewhere it used to be said "for the many who would be sorry for their sins." Where that memory comes from, I don't know, but isn't it a fact that Jesus died for all those who in His Divine foresight would be sorry for their sins? Isn't that the same as saying He died for all, but some would not take advantage of His redemptive sacrifice? We all know that Catholicism is not an elitist organization; it is not exclusive, but inclusive. I knew that when the Mass was in Latin; I knew that when the Novus Ordo was introduced; I know that now with the new translation about to replace the old; and I will know it long after the new translation goes into effect.
Stilted language? Maybe, "churchy" language would be a better description, and in what better place than a church. No, the translation does not reflect how we talk today, nor should it, in my humble opinion. It should try to faithfully reproduce what was said historically, even if that sometimes needs amplification.
I attended a Yom Kippur service with the Jewish side of my family this year and the Rabbi spoke of the efficacy of the rite continuing to be in Hebrew and so difficult to learn. It should be hard, he said, and not something that is easily attained. The Mass, like the Hebrew service, is not something that is necessarily better because it is easy to learn. It is something that we should have to work at and grow into day after day in our spiritual journey. It reflects realities which themselves are so awesome and incomprehensible that we are lucky to get more than a glimmer of their real meaning in a lifetime of spiritual growth.
I could live with the Latin side-by-side with the English, and in fact, prefer it to a language that is so commonplace that it fails to punctuate the enormity of the action that is taking place. The Mass is mystical, mysterious, awesome, mind-boggling, numbing, frightening, inspirational, comforting, nourishing, compelling, exciting, calming, uplifting, humbling - all things to all people! It is not an ordinary event that can properly be described in ordinary language. It is an event that begs superlatives, differences from the ordinary, amazement! Anything that helps this is all right by me. Latin, incense, singing, candles, a crucifix prominently placed, sprinkling of the people, genuflection, bowing, kneeling, stained glass windows, stilted language - bring it on.
Give me something to grow into. Give me something that is a bit difficult at first but yields to constant practice and devotion. Give me something that is different than my everyday life. Give me something that tries to bridge the visual, physical world to the invisible, spiritual world. Give me something that says there's more here than meets the eye. Forgive me if I don't mind saying, "Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed." I know what it means. You may call it stilted; I call it poetic. It's the language of prayer. Just maybe what we have done in making the Mass so easy, so simple, so ordinary, is to despiritualize it, dare I say, secularize it, to some degree - and that is the wrong direction.
According to some sources over on the Pray Tell blog, the number of problems is not hundreds, but thousands, in fact ten thousand, instances of poor translation, deviation from the Latin [i.e. a violation of the principles of Liturgicam Authenticam], and similar.
In other words, your proposed list is a very long one.
Elevated language is fine, obscure, absurd language is not. Reasonable people may disagree on exactly where to draw the line, but I suspect most folks will draw it shorter than your taste. Difficult for difficulty's sake is silly and will drive away many folks, particularly the ones less well educated or intellectualy gifted. How Christian is that?
Thou wouldst love the Anglican service language and shouldst consider partaking of it on a regular basis. Yea, verily, sayest I to thee.
@ James Caruso on December 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-new-translation-as-a-betrayal-of-vatican-ii.htmlHere's just a start:
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/the-latest-version-of-the-new-translation-of-the-roman-canon.html
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/03/a-mistranslation-in-eucharistic-prayer-iii.html
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/bishop-serratelli-tries-to-reply-to-msgr-ryan.html
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/comparing-the-translations-1973-1998-2008.html
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/eucharistic-prayer-iv-passable.html
If people don't go to Mass because they don't like the translation then they have a much bigger issue than a difference of opinion about the translation. If he understands, how can a Catholic not want to go to Mass?
Judging by the poor attendance at my liberal parish that has good music and liturgical innovation, there is something greater missing.
I think the ordinary Sunday evening Latin Mass at the local "orthodox" Catholic parish has better attendance than our beautiful music and innovative Easter Vigil Mass. Why?
Jesus taught us in very simple words expressing truths of bottomless depth. If simple words were good enough for Jesus, shouldn't they be good enough for us? What is more important, fidelity to His teaching, or fidelity to the grammer of Latin, a language he didn't even use?
Will any of these newly translated prayers bring in more believers? Will they lead to more people understanding or just slice off another esoteric segment from all the rest.
Jesus wept!
I guess one man's obscure and absurd is another man's easily understood and sensible. For me, the quote I gave about "not worthy to come under my roof" is even richer than the Novus Ordo version, since it comes directly out of the Douay-Rheims Bible alluding to the faith and humility of the centurion wanting Jesus to cure His servant.
Most folks will indeed differ with me as to where to draw the line. I am happy that Jesus did not put the care, direction and maintenance of His Church in the hands of "most folks." He could have, but He didn't.
Difficulty for difficulty's sake? Is that what people think of the deliberations of our bishops and priests? The more "difficult" wordings may drive many away, but I think not the less educated and intellectually gifted - just the opposite, I think it will drive away the well educated and intellectually gifted in their pride and arrogance to believe that they know better than those entrusted by Jesus with the care and direction of His Church.
I would find great value in the Anglican Church, I am sure, but have decided to remain in the one, true church established by Jesus Christ, the Church that alone is kept free from error by the Holy Spirit, the Church that has the authentic sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation, and the Church that so honors the great Mother of God and promotes the recitation of the Holy Rosary, among other reasons too numerous to mention.
I do find the Novus Ordo a lot easier than the old Latin Mass, but I also find it has less of everything else save easiness. You'd think that being so easy, attendance at Mass would have grown tremendously since Vatican II, but instead we find it has dropped from 74% of Catholics attending Sunday Mass in pre-Vatican II 1958 to 25% in 2000.
Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit through Vatican II allowed a desperate attempt to draw in and/or, keep in, more souls by casting a wider net that would appeal mainly to the less spiritually-minded person. Did it work? Who know how many fewer souls would be Catholic today had this not happened. I'm willing to call it a success. But I do not think that all of the changes represent a better framework for spiritual development - just that God in His Infinite Mercy lowered the bar, not in matters of faith and morals, but in matters of ritual and trappings, that the greater number might be saved. I am all for a number of different Masses, if this serves to save souls, but I do believe that the original Mass should remain with us forever, the model from which none can differ in their essence.
"... God our Savior, who desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for ALL..." 1 Timothy 2:3-6
The French have it right, it seems, as "multitude" is another common meaning of the word in question. It could connote both aspects: that Christ died for every man, but that those who reject Christ have voided that act by not following His teachings (at least for those Catholics who continue to believe in the Last Judgement and the possibility of separation from God.) It also has the advantage that it does not change the word to another the translator wishes had been used in its place.
"Fr Philibert has pointed out one of the more serious missteps in the new translation. Some similar ones appear in the new Creed, where some phrases are prissy and inane. As a translation from the Latin, the whole effort merits at most a C-. Letting it stand for for the American Church's worship seems spineless."
The author refers, in the second and fourth paragraphs, to "the proposed translation". On the other hand, he speaks, in the second paragraph, of "the new English text, slated to become normative in Advent 2011". That's confusing. If it's only "proposed", what's standing in the way of implementation?
The language of the liturgy that's used now is flat as a pancake. So it's proposed that we go from flat to stilted? I wonder whether there aren't far too many theologians in the Church and far too few poets.
Here's to the Church Roman Catholic
Where the poor come looking for God
Whose Pope speaks only to bishops
And bishops speak only to God
Childlike Faith should be enough even for learned liturgists for them to understand that Jesus died for all, not just many. But they seem to say, "Baloney!" And Bishops follow along, confusing simple Faith. If its not broken, why try to fix it? All of which brings to mind the well-know quip, "What's the difference between liturgists and terrorists? You can TALK to terrorists!" That's not good news for the Church, which hopefully, will not end up forcing ever more Believers somewhere else.
However, those of us who choose to remain will humbly obey, trusting that in God's own way and in God's own time liturgists and Bishops will get things right!
"However, those of us who choose to remain will humbly obey, trusting that in God's own way and in God's own time liturgists and Bishops will get things right!"
But what does that matter if we never experience the change? Why stick around and suffer? Should attending church services be painful? Is that sort of penance healthy?
If this is not true, then as Paul says in one of his letters. "We are the most miserable of men!"
Happy New Year!
Not very tangentially, I came across this article on one of the "opposition" web sites:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/singing-the-mass/
Sounds lovely. I suppose from the point of view of many people here, it's not, but I confess I don't understand why not.
If the so-called inclusive language "for all" has been used for the past 37 years, why did church attendance continue to decline after its introduction? (See following article by William J. Byron)
I find it amusing that the same group of liturgists/theologians who pressed the faithful to be open to change 40 years ago are now whining that they are too accustomed to the "old" translation to learn a new one.
Our Lady of the footnotes, ora pro nobis
in addendum in re post by Mel Evans - the best part of RCIA is when a well-trained Protestant "gets it" during a presentation and begins quoting scripture beyond the text and the presenter. I tried to remember to have pad and pencil to take notes at that point.in addendum in re post by Wm Bagley, proper usage would have an Amen Alleluia appended to the poem
in addendum in re post by Barbara Sirovatka: If the so-called inclusive language "for all" had not been used for the past 37 years, perhaps church attendance would have declines even more. (See following article by William J. Byron) We won't know if we don't ask.To quote the famous theologian Wayne Gretsky, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
Paul Philibert’s article, “Lost in Translation,” reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister, a mother of thirteen who teaches Faith Formation to 2nd graders and volunteers at a Catholic Pregnancy Crisis Center in her spare time. I was explaining the new translation of the Roman Missal (“Sacramentary” for the past 40 years) and presented, among others things, the change from “for all” to “for many.” I explained that the previous translation was a dynamic translation, but the Church is preparing a more literal, closer-to-the-Latin translation; and so, the change from the “for all” to the “for many.” “You know, Jackie,” I told her, “that the “for many” is a Semitic idiom that means ‘for all.’” She looked at me and said, “Don’t you guys have better things to do? Like peace and justice and doing something for all “the many” leaving the church?” There may be more than words ""lost in translation."
Fr. John Itzaina, SDB, San Francisco, Saints Peter and Paul Church
In light of this situation, why would we risk gambling with those who stay by introducing a new translation for the mass? On the surface, it may not be so dramatic (except that "for all" vs. "for many" is major), but it will be that last straw for many. (And I mean many and not all.) The German Bishops have the pastoral sense to say no to these changes. Why can't the American Bishops?
And how wonderful that Fr. Philibert said it like it should be said.
With all the problems facing the church and its people today, years are spent on
the minituae of revising Missal words instead of trying to reach out to the faithful, those who stayed and those who strayed. Words....words....words....to quote the song from "My Fair Lady" are wasted when our church is in such deep trouble with sexual abuse and the Vatican powers would love nothing better than turning the altar around again!
"Pro multis".....for all......that's the way Jesus meant for it to be said. And, it is clear that "for all men" is still consistently used by the clergy. Would that the American bishops would face reality and encourage their faithful to pray by uplifting them, not chastising them like children.
Rock on, Fr. Philibert!
The closest the restorationists could come to imposing their imperial will on us was a stilted transliteration, NOT translation, of the Latin. The New Missal is being imposed top-down by Curial hierarchs who have taken the liberty of making numerous changes to the text approved by the American bishops. Would that they had had the courage to say "No!" like the German bishops. I have not seen where they have had the intestinal fortitude to challenge the Curia on the changes!
This cradle Catholic will no longer worship in a Church where he has to pray in a alien language.
So next we will be asked to make a special contribution to purchase new missals that contain all this magic new enlightenment. Which charity will then have to go without: the local foodshelf? Habitat for Humanity? pregnancy crisis center? the victims of the next earthquake?
Apparently there isn't enough of a priest shortage if we have time on our hands to tweak the liturgy like this. Has the institutional Church lost its focus?
You say that "nothing could be worse than our current translation." I deeply disagree. It's not great, but it's workable and met the requirements placed upon it at the time it was created. This new one is, on the whole, awful. Parts of it are indeed great improvements on the current material, but there are countless places where the language is awkward, stilted, ungrammatical, or just plain ugly. Those may it its good points, since none of them so much as mentions the places that it isn't a good translation of the Latin. In some places it's not a translation at all, but something added.
Then there is the matter of the way assorted entities abused their authority and the individuals working on the project. A visit to the Pray Tell blog is enlightening in this regard.
This translation has 'epic fail' written all over it. That's not to say the one we use is much better; as has been noted, it is flat, even sketchy in its accuracy. Too many beautiful images in the Latin get swept aside for the sake of some ideal of 'straightforward language.' Indeed, too much theology is eviscerated by the flat, dull language. I'm grateful for Fr Philibert's highlighting the article by Max Zerwick. That's the kind of theological detail that I can use in a homily, or in teaching about the liturgy.
To my mind, David Smith has more accurately diagnosed the problem: though I don't believe we have too many theologians, it's certainly not for lack of them that we have the problems we do. Rather, it's a lack of poets that afflicts us, and translation by committee...
"Filled with the divine gift, Almighty God, we beg you to grant our desire that, enkindled by your Spirit, we may blaze like bright torches before the face of your Christ when he comes."
This "reflects a much better, and more poetic, liturgical language... closer to the beautiful language of the Anglican liturgies...a church which has many hundreds of years more experience with liturgical English than we have in the last 40 years in the U.S."?????
If the translators had had the humility to consult the Anglican experience, we would have been spared this mess. No cultured Anglican and no lover of the English language would acclaim such dreck as poetic!