Changes in the English Language Mass

[FatHead]

That is true and that is why I think that the teaching has changed. Otherwise, how would anyone explain why the Pope said that the Blood was shed for all when he said a New Mass in English?

um hello, we’ve said it already.
IT WAS AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION. OK?

THIS TRANSLATION HAS 2 MONTHS UNTIL WE WILL NEVER HEAR IT AGAIN.

is that clear enough? can we drop this issue now?

 

[YoungTradCath]

That is true and that is why I think that the teaching has changed. Otherwise, how would anyone explain why the Pope said that the Blood was shed for all when he said a New Mass in English?

Okay…

Let’s start from the top.

The mass, as it currently exists in the Ordinary Form, is written in Latin. This is what you’re referring to as the “New Mass,” I think. In the consecration of the wine, the phrase used is “pro multis.” This is the same phrase used in the consecration in the Tridentine mass, or “old” mass. The wording there didn’t change when the new missal came into being in the 1970s. “Pro” means “for.” “Multis” means “many” or “multitude,” or something like that, but it does not mean “all.”

Now, there exists an English translation of this “New Mass.” The translation that we currently use was written in the year 1973 by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a group whose responsibility it is to translate. In the 1973 translation, the word “multis” was incorrectly rendered as “all.” “Multis” does not mean “all,” as I’ve already said. In the year 2001, the Holy See released a letter called Liturgiam authenticam, or “authentic liturgy.” In this letter were many directives. Among these directives was one which initiated the re-translation of the English translation of the mass. So, ICEL began to re-translate the mass from the original Latin. When they got to the “pro multis” part, they re-translated “multis” from “all” to the more correct, but still not perfect, “many.” What we hear at mass this Sunday will be, for the consecration, the 1973 translation. So we will hear “for all” during the consecration of the wine this morning and for the next six Sundays, October 16, 23, and 30, and November 6, 13, and 20. On Sunday, November 27, the new translation will formally go into effect, and on that morning, during the consecration of the wine, you will not hear “for all;” instead, you will hear “for many.”

It is important to note that the original Latin is not changing, and that it has not changed since it came into being. It was the English translation that got it wrong, that incorrectly captured the meaning of the word “multis.”

As far as to why Pope Benedict said “for all” rather than “for many,” this is because the last time he celebrated a mass in the English language, he used the 1973 translation. So, he said what was in that translation, which is “for all.” In the future, should he choose to celebrate a mass again in the English language, he will say “for many.” He was just saying what was contained in the translation at the time (which is still in effect, but not for long).

The teaching has always been the same. It is the translation that has changed.

 

[louis91766]

um hello, we’ve said it already.
IT WAS AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION. OK?

THIS TRANSLATION HAS 2 MONTHS UNTIL WE WILL NEVER HEAR IT AGAIN.

is that clear enough? can we drop this issue now?

This is quite confusing.
Was the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church correct when he said that the Blood was shed for all? I thought that if the Pope says something on faith and morals, Catholics are supposed to pay attention.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is quite confusing.
Was the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church correct when he said that the Blood was shed for all? I thought that if the Pope says something on faith and morals, Catholics are supposed to pay attention.

:banghead:

Oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my goodness…

Please do read my posts. When the pope says mass, he’s not decreeing new teachings. When the pope says mass, he isn’t making new statements on “faith and morals.”

I’m going to explain this again:

When Pope Benedict celebrated mass in the English language, he celebrated using the words as according to the English translation of 1973. In that translation, the phrase “pro multis” was rendered as “for all.” That is an incorrect translation. “Multis” does not mean “all;” it means something more along the lines of “many,” or “multitude.” But it does not mean “all.”

Due to Liturgiam authenticam being released by the Holy See, a new translation of the Latin, one which would supersede and fully replace the 1973 edition, was ordered. In this new translation, it was decided that “pro multis” would be translated as “for many,” replacing the less correct translation “for all.” This new translation is JUST NOW coming up on us; it will be in force starting November 27, 2011. So, very soon. Effective that day, you will not hear “for all” ever again. You will hear “for many.”

Therefore, since the pope celebrated according to the 1973 translation, he said “for all,” rather than “for many.” This is because the new translation was not in effect yet, and may not have even existed. The next time the pope celebrates mass in the English language, if he does, he will say “for many,” because this is the phrase in the new translation. Was he correct when he said “for all?” YES YES YES!!! Because, at the time, the translation of “pro multis” was, in fact, “for all!” But, this translation is changing very soon to “for many!”

Celebrating mass doesn’t constitute pontificating on new teachings about faith and morals.

 

[louis91766]

:banghead:

Oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my goodness…

Please do read my posts. When the pope says mass, he’s not decreeing new teachings. When the pope says mass, he isn’t making new statements on “faith and morals.”

I’m going to explain this again:

When Pope Benedict celebrated mass in the English language, he celebrated using the words as according to the English translation of 1973. In that translation, the phrase “pro multis” was rendered as “for all.” That is an incorrect translation. “Multis” does not mean “all;” it means something more along the lines of “many,” or “multitude.” But it does not mean “all.”

Due to Liturgiam authenticam being released by the Holy See, a new translation of the Latin, one which would supersede and fully replace the 1973 edition, was ordered. In this new translation, it was decided that “pro multis” would be translated as “for many,” replacing the less correct translation “for all.” This new translation is JUST NOW coming up on us; it will be in force starting November 27, 2011. So, very soon. Effective that day, you will not hear “for all” ever again. You will hear “for many.”

Therefore, since the pope celebrated according to the 1973 translation, he said “for all,” rather than “for many.” This is because the new translation was not in effect yet, and may not have even existed. The next time the pope celebrates mass in the English language, if he does, he will say “for many,” because this is the phrase in the new translation. Was he correct when he said “for all?” YES YES YES!!! Because, at the time, the translation of “pro multis” was, in fact, “for all!” But, this translation is changing very soon to “for many!”

Celebrating mass doesn’t constitute pontificating on new teachings about faith and morals.

But was the translation “for all” approved by the Roman Catholic Church? I thought it was. So why would this not mean that the teaching had been changed since before the teaching was “for many”?

 

[YoungTradCath]

But was the translation “for all” approved by the Roman Catholic Church? I thought it was. So why would this not mean that the teaching had been changed since before the teaching was “for many”?

It WAS approved by the Vatican, yes. But if you know anything about ICEL, the organization which translated the Latin into English, you’d understand what I’m saying. In 1973, ICEL’s common stance was to translate in a manner which they thought would present in simple, basic English the “spirit” or “gist” of what was the “intended” interpretation of the original Latin. The prevailing translation style of ICEL in those years was to render the Latin into the simplest, cleanest English possible. This, while done with, arguably, good intent, utterly destroyed many of the prayers, and made various sacrifices elsewhere. Liturgiam authenticam commanded a more “authentic liturgy,” as the title so plainly suggests. Part of this was to render Latin more literally into the vernaculars.

The wording has ALWAYS been “pro multis.” We just had an bad stint with translation fads of the 1970s, and that has made all the difference these past forty or so years.

What you’re failing to get, here, is that NO teaching changed. The original Latin never has changed since the “new” mass came into being in the 1970s. THAT is the text on which teachings are based, not a translation of it. The translations are just that, translations, not originals, and not absolutely authoritative in ANY setting, because they are flawed. The Latin text has ALWAYS said “pro multis.” It’s just the interpretation, the translation, that has changed. Teaching, doctrine, dogma, does not change based on the vernacular translation; if it did, we’d have thousands of different “versions” of these teachings, doctrines, and dogmas. Americans would have one set of Catholic teachings, Poles would have another, the Japanese yet another. These things can be misinterpreted and misrepresented because of the imperfection of translation techniques, and the very fact that no two languages correspond perfectly to each other in grammar and vocabulary. But the teaching is, ultimately, the same, since the Latin original is what supersedes all these translations and reigns supreme. The Latin is superior to all the translations, since it is the original, and encapsulates most perfectly the meaning of every single word, phrase, sentence and prayer, by virtue of its being the original. If you will recognize and accept this superiority of the Latin original, then you will see why the teaching has never changed and how the translation was flawed.

I’m not going to give in and defeat my own argument, even if it means I have to re-explain this 10,000 more times.

Again, I say: the Latin is the original. The Latin is what the teaching ultimately rests on. The Latin never changed. Therefore, the teaching never changed.

 

[Phemie]

But was the translation “for all” approved by the Roman Catholic Church? I thought it was. So why would this not mean that the teaching had been changed since before the teaching was “for many”?

The teaching didn’t change, it was just badly translated into English. In French it was properly translated “pour la multitude” rather than “pour tous”. The official teaching is what’s written in Latin, precisely because of the possibility of bad translation.

 

[ProVobis]

BTW, do you believe that the Blood was shed for all?

I believe the Latin, which didn’t change.

The teaching didn’t change, it was just badly translated into English. In French it was properly translated “pour la multitude” rather than “pour tous”. The official teaching is what’s written in Latin, precisely because of the possibility of bad translation.

But doesn’t the cognate “multitudes” imply certain groups, where “many” implies a scattering of the full population? Just asking, I’m still sticking to the Latin and only the Latin. There are too many subtle differences among terms like “many” “much” “few” “others” “multitudes” “numerous” “some” etc. And as I said before, “all” and “many” aren’t necessarily contradictory although normal usage among English churchgoers seems to make it so. It’s an unnecessary distraction, in my opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin is superior to all the translations, since it is the original, and encapsulates most perfectly the meaning of every single word, phrase, sentence and prayer, by virtue of its being the original. If you will recognize and accept this superiority of the Latin original, then you will see why the teaching has never changed and how the translation was flawed.

I’m not going to give in and defeat my own argument, even if it means I have to re-explain this 10,000 more times.

Again, I say: the Latin is the original. The Latin is what the teaching ultimately rests on. The Latin never changed. Therefore, the teaching never changed.

Precisely. The original intent was to leave the entire Canon in Latin and only the Latin. Although there was heavy pressure to do away with the Latin and make English the new baseline, it certainly would have saved a lot of confusion and disunity and doubts of consecration had they stuck with the Latin in the Canon.

 

[japhy]

1. It is Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ shed His blood for all.
2. It is Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ shed His blood for many unto the remission of sins.
3. #1 and #2 are both true and are not mutually exclusive.

The Bible makes it clear that Christ shed His blood for all humanity. But the fruit of that sacrifice (remission of sins) is not guaranteed to be applied to all humanity.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent explained it this way:
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.

For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore our Lord said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.
The teaching of the Church on this has never changed, neither before or after Vatican II.

In fact, the current translation (while not being such an accurate translation) is quite true: Jesus did shed His blood “for all so that sins may be forgiven.” This expresses the potentiality of forgiveness. The new translation is more accurate as a translation and also true: Jesus poured out His blood “for many for the forgiveness of sins”, or as my 1961 missal rendered it, “for many unto the remission of sins.” In other words, Jesus’ pouring out of His blood effects, brings about, the remission (forgiveness) of sins of many, while making possible (potential) the forgiveness of sins.

Stop fighting.

 

[pnewton]

1. It is Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ shed His blood for all.
2. It is Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ shed His blood for many unto the remission of sins.
3. #1 and #2 are both true and are not mutually exclusive.

The new translation is more accurate as a translation and also true:

I am glad you pointed this out and thank you for that quote from Trent. I would add that when we consider the words of Mass, the translation needs to reflect the particular statement that the Church wants to make at that point in the Mass. There are many other truths that are not chosen to be a part of Mass.

 

[MissRose73]

Recently, a priest who exclusively celebrates Mass in the EF format was asked about his feelings regarding the English Language (Ordinary Form) changes. Keep in mind, this priest started doing OF when first ordained but now only does Masses in EF. He is a diocesan priest, not in any priestly society like FSSP.

He said he has read the newest translations, and likes that they are more faithful translations compared to what we have now. He certainly hopes that it will be better for us too.

I’ve compared the translations from Latin to English in my missal for certain things like the Confietor, Sanctus, Gloria, etc and they are very similar (or same) to what we will get at the beginning of Advent. Lets hope more reverence, respect, and modesty makes it way back too.

 

[ProVobis]

Stop fighting.

Comes with the territory. The Italians have an expression for this.

traduttore, traditore -

A well-known Italian saying declares traduttore, traditore, ‘Translator, traitor,’ implying this sneaky species is congenitally incapable of remaining faithful to the original text…

kwintessential.co.uk/translation/articles/text-translator.html

 

[japhy]

Comes with the territory. The Italians have an expression for this. traduttore, traditore

Yes, I’m well aware of that. I was specifically speaking of the fighting about whether the Church has changed and is again changing her doctrine about Christ’s death.

Argue about the quality and accuracy of translations as you see fit, but to surmise that an English translation of a normative Latin text has somehow changed what the Church believes… I find that silly.

 

[ProVobis]

Argue about the quality and accuracy of translations as you see fit, but to surmise that an English translation of a normative Latin text has somehow changed what the Church believes… I find that silly.

I’ll agree with you there. Translations and their meanings can and will change — it’s in their nature — but that doesn’t mean the underlying teaching changes.

That said, the poster who argued that the Pope actually used the English consecration formula might have had a valid point as he is supposedly the ultimate teacher of the faith.

 

[japhy]

That said, the poster who argued that the Pope actually used the English consecration formula might have had a valid point as he is supposedly the ultimate teacher of the faith.

But again, the current English translation is not a false doctrine, nor at odds with what the Latin (and the new translation) actually say. Jesus did shed His blood for all so that sins may be forgiven.