"For all" vs. "For many"

[PadraigPearce]

So I went to two masses on the weekend. The first was a saturday vigil at a fairly conservative parish. At the words of institution the priest said “The blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for MANY”. The next day I went to a sunday mass at my normal parish where the priest very loudly and emphatically said “FOR ALL” as he looked around at everyone making eye contact. The priest from the Sunday mass is pretty liberal, and it was clear he was making a statement out of the “for all”, but could someone explain the theological difference between saying "for all’ and “for many”? I know in latin it’s “Pro multis”, or “for the multitude”, but why would two different priests in the same diocese use different translations from the latin?

 

[japhy]

The USCCB had plenty of information on its web site about the new translation of pro multis. Unfortunately, it’s not readily available right now due to their recent redesign. But you can see the cached copies here and here.

Priests should not be using “for many” yet, not until the whole translation is completed and approved and printed.

 

[Joe_5859]

“For all” is the present translation of “pro multis” in the Sacramentary. They are the words that ought to be said at Mass at the present time.

The new translation that is in the works says “For the many” (I believe). That will be the correct way to say it in the future once the new translation goes into effect (in the next year or two).

It appears the first priest may be jumping the gun. I understand that “for many” is a more accurate translation, but that doesn’t give a priest the right to start using it before the final proclamation of the new translation. All it does is create confusion (which is evidenced by the fact that you are here asking this question ).

 

[tee_eff_em]

So I went to two masses on the weekend. The first was a saturday vigil at a fairly conservative parish. At the words of institution the priest said “The blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for MANY”.

A *fairly conservative *parish perhaps, but a liberal priest.

The next day I went to a sunday mass at my normal parish where the priest very loudly and emphatically said “FOR ALL” as he looked around at everyone making eye contact. The priest from the Sunday mass is pretty liberal…

Pretty liberal, perhaps, but in this instance exhibiting conservatism.

Unless circumstances in Canuckia are remarkably different from what I am led to believe.
:twocents:
tee

 

[amgp]

If you read an accurate translation of the Bible, Jesus said, “For many” when he instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. He said this for a reason…not ALL will be saved. I know of priests who refuse to change the words said by the Word…very prudent when you consider what St. John wrote at the end of Revelation regarding what will happen to those who change the words of Sacred Scripture.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If you read an accurate translation of the Bible, Jesus said, “For many” when he instituted the Eucharist at the last supper.

---

**Actually, the Words of Instutition in the classical liturgies of West and East have always been liturgical, rather than directly quoting the Bible.

One Syriac anaphora has them said in the third, not first person.

I have been given to understand that there are a few places or priests that have an indult to use the new translation to see how it works in practice.**

 

[Joe_5859]

If you read an accurate translation of the Bible, Jesus said, “For many” when he instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. He said this for a reason…not ALL will be saved. I know of priests who refuse to change the words said by the Word…very prudent when you consider what St. John wrote at the end of Revelation regarding what will happen to those who change the words of Sacred Scripture.

Yes, that is why the translation is being changed. But the fact is, it hasn’t been changed yet. Until the new translation is officially promulgated (which will also include a set starting date for the changes to go into effect), every English-speaking priest should use the English translation as it is now.

Remember: “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” ( 22.3Sacrosanctum Concilium). Priests should not be changing the words of the Mass on their own authority to suit their own personal preference, even if they are right that it is a better translation. They ought to exhibit humility and obedience to the legitimate authority, and they ought to exhibit patience in waiting for the new translation. To do otherwise gives scandal to the faithful who then think that the words of the Mass can be changed so long as we are “right”. I’m sure that’s the same train of thought that other priests will be using when they refuse to adopt certain changes in the new translation. They will believe they are “right” in retaining “for all” after the new translation goes into effect.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[johnnykins]

If you read an accurate translation of the Bible, Jesus said, “For many” when he instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. He said this for a reason…not ALL will be saved. I know of priests who refuse to change the words said by the Word…very prudent when you consider what St. John wrote at the end of Revelation regarding what will happen to those who change the words of Sacred Scripture.

Actually not prudent but arrogant. NO ONE has the right to change the fixed texts except the Church itself. If priests disagree with the English translation - they should say it in Latin - it’s always been pro multis. BTW the Revelation of John was written in Greek - so even Latin violates your rigid interpretation of the warning by John.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Oy, one of the favorite argument topics for a group of guys who like to get into heated discussions after Mass (at my partly Traditional, partly Novus Ordo parish).

I think of it both ways: Christ shed His Blood on the cross for all of us – from the little baby born this morning to the hardened criminals and terrorists – but He established the Eucharist only for the members of the Church. Thus, for the liturgy, which is the recreation of the Last Supper which was in turn the direct precursor of His sacrificial death, the term “for many” must be used.

 

[corsair]

I remember that in 1974 I tried to ask our priest, who is now deceased, why we used the word ALL and not FOR MANY because the latter is how the Latin is translated. The priest got really hostile and began shouting at me. He said, “who are you to question a priest?”

I didn’t really take to that sort of treatment and returned his hostility. Which led me to change parishes.

I think that a lot of progressives are going to have problems with the up-coming changes. They tend to forget that 40 years ago it didn’t bother them that many, many folks were VERY upset with the Spirit of V2 and those changes and yet most of us accepted them and prayed for a return to reverence.

Some priests, I’m sure will try some of the changes just to see the reactions. However, when things get a little tense, I’ll just trot off to the nearest FSSP parish. NOTHING changes very much there.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that a lot of progressives are going to have problems with the up-coming changes. They tend to forget that 40 years ago it didn’t bother them that many, many folks were VERY upset with the Spirit of V2 and those changes and yet most of us accepted them and prayed for a return to reverence.

It will definitely be interesting. Of those who I’ve heard critique the upcoming (more literal) English translation of the Mass, it’s amazing how many times I have heard the argument: “But this has been the way it is for 40 years. Changing it will confuse people!”

Um, this present change is nothing compared to the previous change these same people celebrated. And 40 years is a blink of an eye in Church history. I even heard one person lament that, the change in translation will cause us to lose the rich musical heritage of the past 40 years (because the words of the Gloria, etc. will be changing)!

Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head in amazement.

 

[idrum677]

I even heard one person lament that, the change in translation will cause us to lose the rich musical heritage of the past 40 years (because the words of the Gloria, etc. will be changing)!

Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head in amazement.

Mass of Creation than I’m all for it!

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe 5859;5623181:

I even heard one person lament that, the change in translation will cause us to lose the rich musical heritage of the past 40 years (because the words of the Gloria, etc. will be changing)!

Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head in amazement.

If that means losing the rich musical heritage of *Mass of Creation *than I’m all for it!

Indeed. I consider it a bonus that much of the contemporary music will have to be set aside in lieu of the new translation.

 

[Phemie]

I remember that in 1974 I tried to ask our priest, who is now deceased, why we used the word ALL and not FOR MANY because the latter is how the Latin is translated. The priest got really hostile and began shouting at me. He said, “who are you to question a priest?”

I didn’t really take to that sort of treatment and returned his hostility. Which led me to change parishes.

I think that a lot of progressives are going to have problems with the up-coming changes. They tend to forget that 40 years ago it didn’t bother them that many, many folks were VERY upset with the Spirit of V2 and those changes and yet most of us accepted them and prayed for a return to reverence.

Obviously somebody questioned it back then because the Canadian GIRM of the day did address the issue of the for all/for many translation in a footnote. The explanation was that the meaning in the original language was ‘for all’ so ICEL went with the sense rather than the literal translation. Actually, they did that for a lot of the translation.

 

[SMHW]

Obviously somebody questioned it back then because the Canadian GIRM of the day did address the issue of the for all/for many translation in a footnote. The explanation was that the meaning in the original language was ‘for all’ so ICEL went with the sense rather than the literal translation. Actually, they did that for a lot of the translation.

I know that’s the sort of thing I’ve been hearing over the years, starting from back in 1969/1970. …that the current translation is a “thought for thought” translation rather than a literal translation.

We were told that “pro multis” should be understood as a figure of speech that meant “everyone”. And we were told that “The Lord be with thee/And with thy spirit” was just a mere greeting. …that In spite of the reference to God it was basically the standard secular greeting.

I think that’s why some of the middle aged and older priests have been less than enthusiastic about the return to a literal translation. So many were taught in seminary that the currently used translation is the most accurate understanding. They worry that people might actually make *too *much of the literal meaning of the words.

Here on Catholic Answers, most seem to believe that the currently used translation is a bad thought for thought translation as well as an inaccurate literal translation. Not all bishops and priests are convinced it is an inaccurate thought for thought translation so the controversy continues in spite of official decisions…

 

[centurionguard]

The USCCB had plenty of information on its web site about the new translation of pro multis. Unfortunately, it’s not readily available right now due to their recent redesign. But you can see the cached copies here and here.

Priests should not be using “for many” yet, not until the whole translation is completed and approved and printed.

It is not my through intention here to be negative concerning "MANY verses “ALL”
There is much controversy over one term verses the other.

It seems so many Catholics forget that NOT ALL are Saved.
Jesus said this Himself that His Blood would the Shed for Many Sinners. Not ALL.
Why is it Bishops detract from this ? Of course it sound cushy that ALL Men and Women would be spared from their sins in the saving grace of Redemption.
But Jesus (“nowhere”) says that His Blood was shed for ALL.
Different biblical translations differ on this, most of which are New Translations.
Check out the Douay Rheims…

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, “which shall be shed for many” unto remission of sins.

 

[SMHW]

It seems so many Catholics forget that NOT ALL are Saved.
Jesus said this Himself that His Blood would the Shed for Many Sinners. Not ALL.
Why is it Bishops detract from this ? Of course it sound cushy that ALL Men and Women would be spared from their sins in the saving grace of Redemption.
But Jesus (“nowhere”) says that His Blood was shed for ALL.
Different biblical translations differ on this, most of which are New Translations.

I don’t think that the majority of those on either side of the translation issue think that all are saved. I don’t believe the Church teaches that those sinners for whom Jesus sheds his blood will always, in fact, go on to accept that salvation.

 

[centurionguard]

I don’t think that the majority of those on either side of the translation issue think that all are saved. I don’t believe the Church teaches that those sinners for whom Jesus sheds his blood will always, in fact, go on to accept that salvation.

Point well taken. However; it still does not explain why both American and Canadian Conferences of Catholic Bishops detract from the original translation by hiding behind
(“Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3”) Then again most Catholics don’t even notice the differences and go with the flow as not to ruffle feathers. Am I one of many few that gets irked by such differences in translation which is most noted in use in English Translation Masses. I regularly go to Masses in French for a change due to part of my Québécois French Canadian heritage and the fact that I am bilingual. In French Masses whether ones culture is Québécois or L’Académie in many Canadian Maritime provinces as well as seen in the American Catholic French L’Académie culture seen in Louisiana there is no problem with misconstrued Eucharistic translations used in the Mass
concerning:

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, (“which shall be shed for many”) unto remission of sins.

Leave it up to the ICEL to make a royal mess in English translations.

 

[Phemie]

Point well taken. However; it still does not explain why both American and Canadian Conferences of Catholic Bishops detract from the original translation by hiding behind
(“Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3”) Then again most Catholics don’t even notice the differences and go with the flow as not to ruffle feathers. Am I one of many few that gets irked by such differences in translation which is most noted in use in English Translation Masses. I regularly go to Masses in French for a change due to part of my Québécois French Canadian heritage and the fact that I am bilingual. In French Masses whether ones culture is Québécois or L’Académie in many Canadian Maritime provinces as well as seen in the American Catholic French L’Académie culture seen in Louisiana there is no problem with misconstrued Eucharistic translations used in the Mass
concerning:

Leave it up to the ICEL to make a royal mess in English translations.

I think your spell check changed ‘Acadie’ to ‘Académie’.

We know that ICEL has always argued that “pro multis” is a translation from another language that meant “for all” and so they went with the original meaning rather than doing the literal translation to “for many”.

I think that Jesus shed his blool for all. We are free to accept or reject his gift of salvation but it’s offered to all. When I go to a French Mass and hear “pour vous et pour la multitude” I don’t interpret it to mean that Jesus died for fewer than when I hear “for you and for all” at an English Mass.

When he fed “the multitude” with the loaves and the fishes we don’t understand that some weren’t fed, we understand that everyone who was there was fed and ate their fill. It may well be that some refused to eat what he provided because they didn’t like fish.

 

[centurionguard]

I think your spell check changed ‘Acadie’ to ‘Académie’.

We know that ICEL has always argued that “pro multis” is a translation from another language that meant “for all” and so they went with the original meaning rather than doing the literal translation to “for many”.

I think that Jesus shed his Blood for all. We are free to accept or reject his gift of salvation but it’s offered to all. When I go to a French Mass and hear “pour vous et pour la multitude” I don’t interpret it to mean that Jesus died for fewer than when I hear “for you and for all” at an English Mass.

When he fed “the multitude” with the loaves and the fishes we don’t understand that some weren’t fed, we understand that everyone who was there was fed and ate their fill. It may well be that some refused to eat what he provided because they didn’t like fish.

I think your spell check changed ‘Acadie’ to ‘Académie’.

Actually; the French spelling differences in ‘Acadie’ to ‘Académie’ denotes a “Patois” or slang jargon in linguistics. eg. not unlike the French Louisiana “Creole” dialect.
There are a lot of Acadian French settlements in around the Boston area

I think that Jesus shed his Blood for all.

TRUE !

But Jesus also said: (“Many are Called, Few are Chosen”).

The Church Elect:
If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God’s goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). ("In the sentence “many are called, but few are chosen”), the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence “many are called, but few chosen” does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one’s soul (Luke 13:23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair.