Misquoting Christ?

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

Critter

Guest
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I have noticed a small inconsistency between Liturgy and Scripture and would appreciate some clarification.

The Scriptures read thus:

Mark 14.24 (KJV) “And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”

Matthew 26.28 (KJV) “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed ***for many ***unto remission of sins.”

But in the Mass the priest quotes Christ as saying:

“…this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”

Is there a translation issue here, or did the Church intentionally change Christ’s words? If the latter, why?

Thanks
 
Critter said:
Is there a translation issue here, or did the Church intentionally change Christ’s words? If the latter, why?

Thanks
Click to expand...
It is a translation issue. There is a new English Mass translation being prepared right now. Pope Benedict has ordered that a change be made to the more correct “for many” in this new translation.

James
 
In the original Roman Canon, the words were “pro multis”, which means “for the many.” Unfortunately, the translation from ICEL (as well as other underlying factors) pretty much gutted the original.

We don’t use the KJV, by the way. It is a Protestant bible that is missing many parts to it. When Luther began his protest, he decided to take out parts that were decidedly Catholic. He even wanted to go so far as to take delete any Petrine references, but was stopped. He also wanted to remove any references to bishops and hierarchy that were found in Timothy. Again, someone put the brakes on it. The language is nice, but, we have the same thing in the Douay-Rheims. My one caveat with the RNAB that we use in our lectionary is that the translation is shoddy, but, that’s for another discussion.

The Church did not (nor has she ever done this to her Divine Spouse) misquote Christ. Bad translation is the culprit here. In fact, this is what Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said in his explanatory notes on the matter:
The Synoptic Gospels make reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering this Sacrifice, and the wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the Prophet Isaiah. It would have been entirely possible for the Gospel texts to have said “for all”; instead the formula given for the Institution Narrative is “for many” and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most biblical versions.
Click to expand...
The Roman Canon in Latin has always said “pro multis” and never “pro omnibus” in the consecration of the chalice.
Click to expand...
I hope this clarification helps you.
 
FWIW, the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil say “for many”, even in Catholic English translations.
 
This issue will be corrected (per the pope’s direct order) in the new translation, if it ever gets out of committees.
 
In the classical rites, the Words of Institution have always been liturgical in form. Never have they exactly quoted the versions given in Scripture.
 
benedictgal said:
We don’t use the KJV, by the way.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry…

Matthew 26.28 “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Douay-Rheims)

Mark 14.24 “And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.” (Douay-Rheims)
 
benedictgal said:
The Roman Canon in Latin has always said “pro multis” and never “pro omnibus” in the consecration of the chalice.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m confused as to how it was that “pro multis” became translated into the English as “for all.”
nightwalker said:
This issue will be corrected (per the pope’s direct order) in the new translation, if it ever gets out of committees.
Click to expand...
I’m also confused as to what the discussion is. Why doesn’t the Pope simply make it happen?
 
He has ruled that the new translation (and any future translations) must have “for many”. The New translation is taking a long time to work through various levels of committees: First ICEL translates its, works out the kinks, then sends their version to the Vatican for approval. Then it goes to the Bishop’s Conference for each country it will be used in, their liturgy committees suggest edits, that than must be sent back to Rome for approval, repeated as necessary.

IIRC, the Ordinary of the Mass is finalized, but the Propers (the Changing parts of the Mass) are before the Bishops’ Conference (as I said, IIRC). It will probably be another year or two before the new translation hits the pews, so to speak.
 
nightwalker said:
He has ruled that the new translation (and any future translations) must have “for many”. The New translation is taking a long time to work through various levels of committees: First ICEL translates its, works out the kinks, then sends their version to the Vatican for approval. Then it goes to the Bishop’s Conference for each country it will be used in, their liturgy committees suggest edits, that than must be sent back to Rome for approval, repeated as necessary.

IIRC, the Ordinary of the Mass is finalized, but the Propers (the Changing parts of the Mass) are before the Bishops’ Conference (as I said, IIRC). It will probably be another year or two before the new translation hits the pews, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the “for all” translation also have to make it through all these layers and layers of committee approvals and imprematurs before becoming the norm? How is it that no one caught the mistranslation at any point in the process?
 
Critter said:
Didn’t the “for all” translation also have to make it through all these layers and layers of committee approvals and imprematurs before becoming the norm? How is it that no one caught the mistranslation at any point in the process?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a question of it not being ‘caught’. In the 1975 GIRM, Canadian Edition, this is explained as not a mistranslation of the Latin but a proper interpretation of the original language of the Bible. ICEL strikes again.
 
Phemie said:
I don’t think it’s a question of it not being ‘caught’. In the 1975 GIRM, Canadian Edition, this is explained as not a mistranslation of the Latin but a proper interpretation of the original language of the Bible. ICEL strikes again.
Click to expand...
Okay, then if it’s the proper translation, why would the Pope want to change it? :confused:
 
Brendan said:
Because it is NOT the proper translation, but some ‘experts’ in the 1970’s thought it was.
Click to expand...
Okay, I don’t want to launch a whole new discussion here, but if the Pope gave his blessing to something so important (the liturgy!) that happens to be wrong, how does that not undermine papal infallibility?
 
The people in charge of approving the translations made an imprudent decision.
 
japhy said:
The people in charge of approving the translations made an imprudent decision.
Click to expand...
Possibly so, but His Holiness has made it perfectly clear that using ‘for all’ in no way invalidates the Mass or anything like that - some sedevacantists like to claim the contrary, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top