LATIN MASSES IN THE KNOXVILLE DIOCESE

PRO MULTIS

To Traditionalists, one of the most disturbing "innovations" of the implementation of Vatican II has been the mis-translation of the words of Consecration of the wine, i.e. "pro multis" means "for all". The mis-translation stems from the ideas of that school of linguistics that propounds a "dynamic" translation, in which the translator interprets what the writer being translated actually meant by his words. Literal translations are not accurate because they do not reflect what the writer actually meant. Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen, Germany, a Lutheren theologian, was the author of this erroneous translation. It surpasses all understanding that the Church heirarchy, most of whom certainly knew Latin, would reject more than 1900 years of liturgical practice and embrace the innovations of a Lutheren. Even more puzzling is why they persistently resist making the obvious correction. Presented below are the arguments for why "for all" is a seriously wrong translation. Emphasis has been added to sections marked by *.

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic', as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation. *

Wherefore the words of the Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro mulits effundetur in remissionem peccatorum....If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament.*

4. "Pro Multis"

It will be shed for you and for all men that sins may be forgiven.

It is necessary here to turn our attention to the English translation of the "Novus Ordo". Our discussion centers around the phrase "for all men." The Latin of the "Novus Ordo" corresponds with that of the Missale Romanum, as you can see in the comparative renderings given above: both have "pro multis," which even the slowest Latin student understands to mean "for many" (i.e., "for many" men, people, persons or the equivalent).If one wishes to say "for all men" in Latin, he must say "pro omnibus."

The question we are here discussing will remain for all time to come one of the most culpable and at the same time incredible delinquencies in the history of the Church. Incredible because it is a question of utmost gravity, and yet those whom it concerns cannot be brought to give it a moments consideration, even though it is impossible for anyone honestly to deny the error or who they are that are guilty of it, or who had the responsibility for preventing it, and who now have the responsibility for correcting it. It is so serious a question because there is every reason to believe the erroneous rendering of these two Latin words invalidates the Consecration of the wine when the vernacular "for all men" is used.*

On June 15, 2006, American bishops approved and sent to the Vatican for approval, a new translation of the "Missale Romanum." The translations currently in use were based on rules issued from the Vatican shortly after Vatican II, which encouraged "dynamic equivalence" translations, i.e. free form translations not bound by the context of the original documents. In 2001, new rules were issued from the Vatican. These new rules called for literal translations of the Latin texts. Yet, even after so long a time lapse, 173 American bishops including Bp. Troutman of Erie, Pa., and chairman of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy, continued the erroneous translation of "pro multis." However, as the following quote from Catholic World News shows, they were overruled by the Vatican. The question remains, will they submit to Rome, or continue their habit of ignoring Rome's direction, as they have in ignoring the implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum, which set the norms for the offering of the Novus Ordo Mass?

Vatican, Nov. 18, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The 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 (bio - news), 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 this correction.

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*.

The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice. 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.* "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis*.

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.

In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

To which the author of this site adds, "Thank you, Pope Benedict the Great, for this first step in reforming the reform. Habemus Papam. Vive Papem."

Cleveland Mass	Cleveland Propers	Madisonville Mass	Madisonville Propers
Latin/English Tridentine Ordinary	Commentary	Holy Ghost Propers	Absolution and Holy Water
	Archives