"For many" or "for all"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ceh47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ceh47

Guest
At the consecration of the chalice the words in Latin are “pro multis” which means “for many”, but it is translated as “for all” in the English Sacramentary. This is a cause of contention for some Catholics, usually of the more traditional type.

From my research I gather word for “many” can be used to mean “all”, sometimes interchangably. John Paul II mentioned this in his letter to priests on Holy Thursday 2005, St Augustine makes the point in the ‘City of God’, St Thomas in the Teria Pars of the ‘Summa Theologiae’ (both on the resurrection of the dead), St Paul in Romans 5.

I wonder if anyone has any other suggestions, or maybe a different point of view.

Thanks,

Chris
 
The trues, most faithful translation would be “for many”. It comes from the Latin phrase in the consecratory words “pro multis”. “For all” would be “pro omnes”.
 
Fidei Defensor:
The trues, most faithful translation would be “for many”. It comes from the Latin phrase in the consecratory words “pro multis”. “For all” would be “pro omnes”.
Click to expand...
Just a note on one point:

“For all” = pro omnibus (ablative case)
 
Fidei Defensor:
The trues, most faithful translation would be “for many”. It comes from the Latin phrase in the consecratory words “pro multis”.
Click to expand...
This is what I would say also. For example, suppose a disaster struck and you were to evacuate 95,000 people from a city that has 100,000 people and transport this 95,000 to a different state. But you leave in place 5,000 of them, since they were not affected by the disaster, and these 5,000 are going to be left there to help with the cleanup. Then I think you could truthfully say that “Many of the people from this city have been evacuated”, but I don;t see how anyone could truthfully say that “all of the people from this city have been evacuated.”
 
40.png
severinus:
Just a note on one point:

“For all” = pro omnibus (ablative case)
Click to expand...
Excuse my grammar, I’m still learning.
 
I’ve had a read through the Greek and Latin of Romans 5.18-19 and St Paul is using both “all” and “many” in exactly the same way - one means the other.
 
40.png
ceh47:
I’ve had a read through the Greek and Latin of Romans 5.18-19 and St Paul is using both “all” and “many” in exactly the same way - one means the other.
Click to expand...
I believe “pro multis” actually is more accurately translated as “for the many”, or “for the multitude.”

The argument concerning the use of many/all appears to revolve around ‘For who is Christ’s Blood shed?’

On one hand, one can accurately say that His Blood is shed specifically for the many people who accept him as their Savior/Messiah.

On the other hand, Christ’s saving power through the shedding of His Blood is generally available to all.
 
40.png
muledog:
I believe “pro multis” actually is more accurately translated as “for the many”, or “for the multitude.”

The argument concerning the use of many/all appears to revolve around ‘For who is Christ’s Blood shed?’

On one hand, one can accurately say that His Blood is shed specifically for the many people who accept him as their Savior/Messiah.

On the other hand, Christ’s saving power through the shedding of His Blood is generally available to all.
Click to expand...
Exactly. “Pro multis” is best translated as “for THE many” or for “the multitude.”
 
Anyone interested in the history of scholarship behind the choice to translate “pro multis” as “for all” will want to look at the articles posted on the website of “What Does The Prayer Really Say?”, which is a weekly series published in the newspaper The Wanderer. This issue was examined in depth when the series worked on The Roman Canon (1st Eucharistic Prayer) in a four-parter focusing on the words “Simili modo”. Here are a couple links:

wdtprs.info
wdtprs.com/eux1/

I think that this is the single most important of all the translation issues being fought over in the preparation of the new English translation of the Missale Romanum.

Regards.

Fr. J.T. Zuhlsdorf
 
Dear fr_z
The Church’s teaching is clear. This is our Catholic faith: Christ died for all but not all will be saved. Many will be saved. Many can be a huge number, a multitude so vast it defies human imagining but not God’s ability to number. Lacking even one, not all are saved. What does this mean? Why did ICEL chose “for all” in the translation we have been using? How is WDTPRS going to translate pro multis? Come back next week to find out!
Click to expand...
Many thanks for supplying the links to (from the very litle that I have actually read) an invaluable resource.

I have other resources on “pro multis” on my (pretentious) A – Z “cheat-sheet” on the SSPX at hrrp://jloughnan.tripod.com/chetshet.htm

Pro multis

· Assertion that the change in the words of the Consecration of the wine renders the Consecration (i) invalid (some), or (ii) gravely doubtful (others) and so, on whatever count (iii) to be avoided at all cost (all).

· Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church.

· “Hebrew and Aramaic words of “many” familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of “the all who are many” or an “undefined multitude” The bible on occasion uses all and many interchangeably”

· Is “For All” an Invalid Translation of “Pro Vobis et Pro Multis”?

· Is it true that a lie has been introduced in the very heart of Catholicism, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the change of ‘pro multis’ in the Latin Novus Ordo to the ‘for all’ in the vernacular?

· No theologian holds (since it was never taught by the Church) that only the words of the Consecration as laid down by the Bull Quo Primum constitute the form of the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist.

· The Council of Trent recognized that the words “For you and for many” are not found in that form in the New Testament.

· The emphasis, is thus not on the extent of salvation, but on who Christ died for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top