Pontiff Tells German Bishops that Pro Multis Must Be Translated Literally

[Catholic_Press]

The new translation of the Roman Missal into German will include a literal translation of the words pro multis during the consecration of the Precious Blood, Pope Benedict said in a letter to the bishops of Germany.

More…

 

[ProVobis]

Why not just have every Mass have the consecration in the Latin? Seems that would be a lot easier than having to figure out the right translation for every vernacular.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Why not just have every Mass have the consecration in the Latin? Seems that would be a lot easier than having to figure out the right translation for every vernacular.

It seems that having the “critical words” of every sacrament in Latin would solve every translation validity/prudence problem.

But of course not! Latin is “forbidden!” Except, well… oh my…

 

[JRKH]

Of course Latin itself is a translation of the Greek - So perhaps consecration should be in the Greek and not the “Latin translation”.

But then Jesus did not likely institute the Sacrament in Greek but in Aramaic…So perhaps the words of consecration should be in Aramaic…

Just sayin…

With tongue firmly planted in cheek…

Peace
James

 

[YoungTradCath]

Of course Latin itself is a translation of the Greek - So perhaps consecration should be in the Greek and not the “Latin translation”.

But then Jesus did not likely institute the Sacrament in Greek but in Aramaic…So perhaps the words of consecration should be in Aramaic…

Just sayin…

With tongue firmly planted in cheek…

Peace
James

There is absolutely no question of validity or prudence when the Latin text is used to confect a sacrament. Examples like the “pro multis” fiasco do, in fact, question the prudence of using vernacular translations for these most critical words in confecting sacraments.

Even deeper, it really isn’t about any language in particular. It isn’t about authenticity to what language Jesus used, really. It’s mostly about the principle of having the critical words of a sacrament in one standardized language, and the standard language of the Latin Church is Latin. There is no questioning the validity or prudence of, “Hoc est enim corpus meum…” and, “Hic est calix sanguinis mei… qui pro vobis et pro multis…” It could be Polish or, for the archaeology lover, Aramaic. But Latin makes sense historically and traditionally. Although, like I said, the language in particular is not the point, standardization is.

 

[ringil]

There is absolutely no question of validity or prudence when the Latin text is used to confect a sacrament. Examples like the “pro multis” fiasco do, in fact, question the prudence of using vernacular translations for these most critical words in confecting sacraments.

.

No this doesn’t question the prudence of using vernacular. A worthy translations simply needs to be provided and that is what the Vatican is stating. There’s no “fiasco” here except an invented one.

The Mass may be celebrated in Latin or in approved translations- there is nothing more complex than that.

 

[ProVobis]

The Mass may be celebrated in Latin or in approved translations- there is nothing more complex than that.

Approved by whom? Apparently the ones that have been approved by the bishops are disapproved by Rome. But Vatican II allowed the bishops to do their own translations if they felt it was to their advantage. And what’s the best way to translate “multis” anyway? Apparently things have become quite complex because of the allowance of the vernacular.

FWIW, the Spanish consecration has “por vosotros y por todos los hombres” (for you and for all men) and there are, I’m sure, a lot more Spanish Masses than German and English ones combined around the world and I haven’t heard any plans to “fix” the Spanish Mass. The Pope incidentally used the Spanish EP in Cuba and the Latin EP in Mexico.

Of course Latin itself is a translation of the Greek

Actually the 1970 Missal was promulgated in Latin, not Greek. It left the Greek (Kyrie Eleison) and the Hebrew (Sabaoth) from the older missal intact. Not so, the vernaculars.

 

[ringil]

Approved by whom? Apparently the ones that have been approved by the bishops are disapproved by Rome. But Vatican II allowed the bishops to do their own translations if they felt it was to their advantage. And what’s the best way to translate “multis” anyway? Apparently things have become quite complex because of the allowance of the vernacular.

FWIW, the Spanish consecration has “por vosotros y por todos los hombres” (for you and for all men) and there are, I’m sure, a lot more Spanish Masses than German and English ones combined around the world and I haven’t heard any plans to “fix” the Spanish Mass. The Pope incidentally used the Spanish EP in Cuba and the Latin EP in Mexico.

Actually the 1970 Missal was promulgated in Latin, not Greek. It left the Greek (Kyrie Eleison) and the Hebrew (Sabaoth) from the older missal intact. Not so, the vernaculars.

The vernacular is permitted and that is not going to change. Yes, we need good translations and I agree that they should be literal. The Church has decided this.

The Congregation for Divine Worship doesn’t take reccommendations from laymen or, likely, even priests.

What good is saying "should be, ought to be. . . . "?? It just “is”.

 

[JRKH]

There is absolutely no question of validity or prudence when the Latin text is used to confect a sacrament. Examples like the “pro multis” fiasco do, in fact, question the prudence of using vernacular translations for these most critical words in confecting sacraments.

Even deeper, it really isn’t about any language in particular. It isn’t about authenticity to what language Jesus used, really. It’s mostly about the principle of having the critical words of a sacrament in one standardized language, and the standard language of the Latin Church is Latin. There is no questioning the validity or prudence of, “Hoc est enim corpus meum…” and, “Hic est calix sanguinis mei… qui pro vobis et pro multis…” It could be Polish or, for the archaeology lover, Aramaic. But Latin makes sense historically and traditionally. Although, like I said, the language in particular is not the point, standardization is.

My point is simply this. So long as a given translation is Church approved there is no problem in using said translation for confecting the Sacrament.

Christ’s original words were translated to Greek. From there to Latin and from Latin to various Church approved vernaculars. In each case, the Church used/uses a process for approving the translations. Once approved…they are valid.

The Vatican seems to be saying to the German bishops…We don’t believe your translation is sufficiently accurate. And given the Holy Father is German Himself…He certainly would have a good grasp of the language. :thumbsup:

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

The vernacular is permitted and that is not going to change.

Actually it has.

 

[ProVobis]

Christ’s original words were translated to Greek. From there to Latin and from Latin to various Church approved vernaculars.

We don’t know what the exact original words were. The validity of the sacrament comes from Tradition (there is one rite which uses no words of Institution) and Latin was used in the liturgies as early as a few years after Christ, according to archaelogists. That said, translating Greek to Latin, IF it had been done that way, isn’t the same as translating Latin into some modern morphed language. And English, because of its many homophones and the lack of inflections, is about the poorest language to translate into from Latin. And some of the so-called literal translations aren’t. I still don’t know how, for example, “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum,” literally, “Upwards hearts/We hold (them) to the Lord.” had been translated by the early Anglicans as “Lift up your hearts/We have lifted them to the Lord” and we still go by their translations. There’s no lifting in the Latin or Polish or the other languages and the response is in the present tense.

Maybe you don’t see a problem, but there’s a reason why the Council of Trent condemned vulgar tongues and Vatican II retained the Latin in the liturgy, and those councils hold much higher authority than you or I.

 

[Theophorus]

The new translation of the Roman Missal into German will include a literal translation of the words pro multis during the consecration of the Precious Blood, Pope Benedict said in a letter to the bishops of Germany.

More…

It’s a sad day when the fact that the Holy Father, telling the German Bishops to translated something literally, makes the news.

 

[Boulder257]

Sounds like good news, so why all the sarcasm? Can’t we celebrate these wonderful things instead of gloating?

 

[JRKH]

We don’t know what the exact original words were. The validity of the sacrament comes from Tradition (there is one rite which uses no words of Institution) and Latin was used in the liturgies as early as a few years after Christ, according to archaelogists. That said, translating Greek to Latin, IF it had been done that way, isn’t the same as translating Latin into some modern morphed language. And English, because of its many homophones and the lack of inflections, is about the poorest language to translate into from Latin. And some of the so-called literal translations aren’t. I still don’t know how, for example, “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum,” literally, “Upwards hearts/We hold (them) to the Lord.” had been translated by the early Anglicans as “Lift up your hearts/We have lifted them to the Lord” and we still go by their translations. There’s no lifting in the Latin or Polish or the other languages and the response is in the present tense.

Maybe you don’t see a problem, but there’s a reason why the Council of Trent condemned vulgar tongues and Vatican II retained the Latin in the liturgy, and those councils hold much higher authority than you or I.

Just so…And the Church who gives those councils their authority is also overseeing the various translations. Praise be to God for His wonderful Church.

Peace
James

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I wish the Holy See would REPLACE all ecclesiastical conferences when it comes to translation.

This case in Germany–as well as many instances in the United States just proves that ecclesiastical conferences can’t be counted on when it comes to translation.

If they could you wouldn’t have all the inclusive language lunacy.

The Holy See should be in charge of not only mass translation but approval of biblical translations as well.

 

[Nagoda]

With all due respect, I believe the Holy Father and the Holy See have gotten this point very wrong. The Holy Father argues that using a literal translation of the phrase “pays respect to the orginal words of Jesus”, when in fact it doesn’t. Words have meaning and context, and paying respect to them acknowledges this. To translate this phrase literally looses the historical context and meaning in which the phrase originally occurred.

To say that “for all” is an interpretation is true, but it is a necessary one, because the phrase “for many” is a Semetic idiom. It is also used by Jesus in Mt. 20:28, and according to the Bishops’ commentary for the NAB translation, which is the same commentary and translation on the Vatican website, actually means “for all”:

“The liberation brought by Jesus’ death will be for many; cf Is. 53:12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to ‘all’”

The commentary for the words of consecration in Matthew’s Gospel references the above note and so when Jesus said “for many” in Aramaic, he was using a common idiom which the Apostles would have understood as the sacrifice being for everyone. This is also true in Ancient Greek, so that when the phrase was passed down and written in the Gospels, it would have retained its original connotations and meaning. The problem of course came when Jerome translated the Greek into the Latin centuries later and mistranslated it literally into “pro multis”. But of course the problem is that “pro multis” does not mean “for everyone” like original idiom did, but means “for many” and has connotations of exclusivism. What would have been a better translation would have been “pro omnibus” since it would have gotten across Jesus’ intent and meaning.

And of course in German and English, “for many” has lost the original intention behind the idiom because the phrase, like in Latin, does not intend to include everybody. The West has lost the original context, meaning and intent behind Jesus’ words and so it makes no sense to translate them literally if it looses their meaning and what the Lord really was trying to get across to the Apostles at the Last Supper. And of course every good translator knows that you don’t trnaslate idioms literally, you interpret them so that their meaning is retained.

To translate the words of consecration literally not only does a disservice to Jesus’ words since it changes completely what the Lord meant, it does a disservice to Catholics worldwide: when people hear “for many” it brings with it a connotation that Jesus only died for “some” people and not for everyone. A central tenant of the Church’s theology has been that Jesus died for all. Ironically, this mistranslation promotes Calvinism more than it does the teachings of the Church. It needs to be corrected, otherwise people will start getting the wrong idea in their heads that Jesus didn’t die for everyone and that he only died for some, “the many” or in Calvinist terms “the Elect”. I would in fact argue that this mistranslation is dangerous and undermines the central Dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium that Christ died for all.

In Canada, where I live, the Bishops tried to solve this by explaining the idiom in their commentary on the translation. Unfortunately, the average Catholic does not look at liturgical commentaries. And Catechesis of the new translation cannot be taught to every single new parishoner or convert: not everyone will attend such a Catechesis, and so it is just not logistically possible and so you always have the possibility fo someone getting the wrong idea about what the Church teaches. What happens when the old generation who grew up with the previous translation passes away? Will our children think that Christ didn’t die for everybody? Most Catholics learn their faith from the Mass, and so to really do honour to the words of Jesus, the words of consecration should be changed in the Latin to “pro omnibus” and the ensuing translations of the Latin to “for all” in order to correct a mistake in the original formula that is centuries old and to convey what our Lord really meant and intended.

Of course some will argue that this can’t be since the Magisterium is infallible and therefore the formula can’t be wrong, but remember that the Magisterium isn’t to blame here, it was Jerome who mistranslated the idiom when he was translating the Vulgate in the first place, and Jerome is not infallible, nor is a translation infallible. I suspect that when Jerome mistranslated the idiom, the meaning behind the idiom might have been lost and so he didn’t understand it’s original intent. How could he? His historical context was very different from the one Jesus lived in. The Magisterium was simply going with the tradition they had. How could they have known the idiom had been mistranslated, if the original intent and meaning had been lost to them? They were doing the best they could, but now that we have rediscovered the original meaning behind the idiom, the translators should do as Divinio Afflante Spiritu suggests and recover the original intent and meaning behind the words as the Sacred Authors who wrote the Gospels would have intended And considering that the meaning of the idiom would not have been lost when translated into Ancient Greek, that means translating it as “for all” and not “for many”.

Jesus died for all, the liturgy revovles around his sacrifice, and so any translation of the words of the Mass should convey the inclusiveness of that sacrifice as our Lord originally intended. I am sorry, but in this regard, I think the Holy Father is wrong in the approach he has taken with regards to the translation of the Roman Missal with respect to the words of consecration. This mistranslation needs to be corrected for the proper Catechesis and good of the Faithful.

 

[ProVobis]

Just so…And the Church who gives those councils their authority is also overseeing the various translations.

But translations aren’t infallible.

And somehow it doesn’t seem right that the same bishops who approved SC (“Latin to remain in the liturgy”) by a vote of 2147 to 4 are the same ones who then pushed for all-vernacular all-the-time liturgies. Just saying.

 

[ProVobis]

With all due respect, I believe the Holy Father and the Holy See have gotten this point very wrong. The Holy Father argues that using a literal translation of the phrase “pays respect to the orginal words of Jesus”, when in fact it doesn’t. Words have meaning and context, and paying respect to them acknowledges this. To translate this phrase literally looses the historical context and meaning in which the phrase originally occurred.
…

Valid points but one has to look at the full text. There is more than just all vs many:

Latin:
Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Obsolete translation:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it: 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. Do this in memory of me.

New translation:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant; which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.

It seems that one can make a case where both are theologically correct, although the meaning is different: In the old, all’s sins MAY be forgiven and in the new, many’s sins WILL be forgiven. But what is the meaning of “many” and is it the same in all languages?
I would say no to the last question. But “all” has the same meaning in most languages.

 

[Digitonomy]

and I haven’t heard any plans to “fix” the Spanish Mass.

I tried to tell you.

Here is my post #8 from December discussing German, French, and Spanish, immediately before your post #9 discussing the Italian mass.

 

[JRKH]

But translations aren’t infallible.

And somehow it doesn’t seem right that the same bishops who approved SC (“Latin to remain in the liturgy”) by a vote of 2147 to 4 are the same ones who then pushed for all-vernacular all-the-time liturgies. Just saying.

The translations may not be infallible but, with proper approval, they are legitimate. Correct for use. In other words, even if a translation is not “the best”, so long as it is properly approved by The Church which has the authority to “bind and Loose”…“whatever”, it is acceptable for the confection of the Eucharist at mass.

Of course this authority to bind and loose also places a great and grave responsibility on the bishops of the Church to see to it that they DO get it as right as they can.

As to the other matter, I have no opinion…

Peace
James