Pontiff Tells German Bishops that Pro Multis Must Be Translated Literally

[Jerry-Jet]

I think Pope Benedict XVI has a brain and knows what he’s talking about.

I think he’s smarter than the posters here at this forum and I bet you that he might have even prayed before telling the German bishops what to do concerning translation.

Now if all of that is the case–wouldn’t you rather bet your soul on his opinion?

 

[ProVobis]

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.

But the 1970 Latin Mass and the Latin Vulgate are still the authoritative editions of the vernacular Mass and most of all the English Bibles. A bishop may give his imprimatur on a translated Bible or handmissal but all that says is that he sees it as free from doctrinal error.

The current German translations were approved legitimately as well. It wasn’t easy to get a whole synod of bishops to approve the first translation and, judging by the fact that it took over 15 years to get a new English translation implemented, I wouldn’t expect the final approval on a new German translation for quite some time. However, all I see here is a direct order from Rome to make it a top priority. I wouldn’t worry about the confection of the Eucharist as De Defunctibus gives some leeway as to what constitutes a valid consecration. Legitimacy, however, is another issue.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Thanks.

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

IN that case “pro multis” would properly in Spanish be " por un gran número". And not “por todos…”

 

[JRKH]

But the 1970 Latin Mass and the Latin Vulgate are still the authoritative editions of the vernacular Mass and most of all the English Bibles. A bishop may give his imprimatur on a translated Bible or handmissal but all that says is that he sees it as free from doctrinal error.

The current German translations were approved legitimately as well. It wasn’t easy to get a whole synod of bishops to approve the first translation and, judging by the fact that it took over 15 years to get a new English translation implemented, I wouldn’t expect the final approval on a new German translation for quite some time. However, all I see here is a direct order from Rome to make it a top priority. I wouldn’t worry about the confection of the Eucharist as De Defunctibus gives some leeway as to what constitutes a valid consecration. Legitimacy, however, is another issue.

And all of this is why I am so glad that my job in the church is to simply Go with Joy to receive my Lord…

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

I wouldn’t worry about the confection of the Eucharist as De Defunctibus gives some leeway as to what constitutes a valid consecration. Legitimacy, however, is another issue.

Sorry, that should read De Defectibus. I got a little distracted by a caller before I had a chance to double check my spellings and stuff before.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Will the German bishops obey the pope when he says how to translate something?

My opinion is The only reason things have taken so long in the past to accomplish(translation wise) is because the Holy See in the past has been tolerant of disobedience.

Exactly what part of “Translate this this way” do they NOT understand?

I pray that the German bishops aren’t as obstinate as some American bishops seemed to be when it came to the inclusive language fiasco.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sorry, that should read De Defectibus. I got a little distracted by a caller before I had a chance to double check my spellings and stuff before.

Perhaps if they’d actually print De Defectibus in the OF Missals.

 

[ProVobis]

IN that case “pro multis” would properly in Spanish be " por un gran número". And not “por todos…”

Is there anything else (like a subjunctive) that they would have to fix? (See post #17) I don’t know Spanish that well though I manage to make it through the Mass.

Tomad y bebed todos de él, porque éste es el cáliz de mi Sangre, Sangre de la alianza nueva y eterna, que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres para el perdón de los pecados. Haced esto en conmemoración mea.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps if they’d actually print De Defectibus in the OF Missals.

I’d print Veterum Sapientia in all OF Missals.

 

[ProVobis]

And all of this is why I am so glad that my job in the church is to simply Go with Joy to receive my Lord…

Not to sound too obnoxious and nitpicky, but that to me is another dubious translation of the Latin. Why do we always say “take” or “receive” when the Latin word is “accipite” (from which our English word “accept” comes from) and not “recipite”? But no bishop has ever said much about it so I guess it must be okay.

 

[Nagoda]

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.

I hadn’t noticed that discrepency between the “may” and “will be” shed. It’s interesting, because I’ve checked the Vulgate (I can read Latin), and the liturgical text and the Vulgate use the same verb (effundere- to shed, to pour out), but the form is different. According to the Vulgate, which predates the Latin in the liturgical text we have now, it says effunditur, not effundetur- “it is (being) poured out/shed” vs. “it will be poured out/shed” for “the many”, which changes the meaning further.

Upon consulting the original Koine Greek of both Matthew and Mark (Luke actually follows the oral tradition that Paul has in 1st Corinthians. If you compare all four accounts of the consecration, you’ll see that there are two oral traditions being passed down. Paul has one, which Luke follows, and Mark has another, which Matthew follows. Neat huh?) I’ve noticed that the Greek has the same “poured out for the many”, which, if we translate the Jewish idiom correctly means that the blood of the New Covenant is being poured out for all.

 

[Digitonomy]

Not to sound too obnoxious and nitpicky, but that to me is another dubious translation of the Latin. Why do we always say “take” or “receive” when the Latin word is “accipite” (from which our English word “accept” comes from) and not “recipite”?

It’s certainly not too obnoxious or nitpicky to question such a thing in a thread, the topic of which is translations (even if those in the OP are specifically German). However, I think you’re wrong that using such words is contrary to the Church’s understanding of what we are doing at mass.

I don’t know the English well enough, not to mention the Latin, to say offhand where all the uses of the word “take” or “receive” occur in the mass. However, we certainly have the “take and eat” verse for the former word. The use of “receive” that comes to mind is in the old translation of the missal, “Lord I am not worthy to receive you…” “To receive you” has since been changed to “that you should enter under my roof,” but the idiom of having someone enter under your roof has no difference in meaning compared to receiving someone into your house. I don’t recall where the “accipite” occurs, but I think it’s pretty clear that the Church understands us to be receiving the Lord as a guest. Does that mean something different from “accepting” him? I don’t think so, but I could be convinced if you’ve got evidence.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s certainly not too obnoxious or nitpicky to question such a thing in a thread, the topic of which is translations (even if those in the OP are specifically German). However, I think you’re wrong that using such words is contrary to the Church’s understanding of what we are doing at mass.

I didn’t say it was contrary. However, when even the Vatican website has translations (I presume they are approved) like “worship Mary” (Latin = colere) it certainly makes English-speaking Catholics vulnerable to Protestant attacks.

I also happen to understand the Polish translations. Yes, they are approved by the Polish bishops as English by the American bishops but that doesn’t mean that I will understand the Mass in the same way through two different translations. And I’m not saying either one is wrong.

I don’t know the English well enough, not to mention the Latin, to say offhand where all the uses of the word “take” or “receive” occur in the mass. However, we certainly have the “take and eat” verse for the former word. The use of “receive” that comes to mind is in the old translation of the missal, “Lord I am not worthy to receive you…” “To receive you” has since been changed to “that you should enter under my roof,” but the idiom of having someone enter under your roof has no difference in meaning compared to receiving someone into your house. I don’t recall where the “accipite” occurs, but I think it’s pretty clear that the Church understands us to be receiving the Lord as a guest. Does that mean something different from “accepting” him? I don’t think so, but I could be convinced if you’ve got evidence.

Well, it’s used throughout the consecration and I can’t come up with a single English word that will work for all the occurrences (and again, I’m not doubting validity of however it’s translated):

Qui cum Passióni voluntárie traderétur, accépit
panem et gratias agens frégit, dedítque discípulis suis,
dicens:
Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc
est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis
tradetur.
Símili modo, postquam cenátum est, accípiens et
cálicem, íterum grátias agens dédit discípulis suis,
dicens:
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.

New translation: (I think, I haven’t been to an English Mass in a long time)

At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this, all of you, and eat of it: for this is my Body which will be given up for you.

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

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.

 

[ProVobis]

I hadn’t noticed that discrepency between the “may” and “will be” shed. It’s interesting, because I’ve checked the Vulgate (I can read Latin), and the liturgical text and the Vulgate use the same verb (effundere- to shed, to pour out), but the form is different. According to the Vulgate, which predates the Latin in the liturgical text we have now, it says effunditur, not effundetur- “it is (being) poured out/shed” vs. “it will be poured out/shed” for “the many”, which changes the meaning further.

Upon consulting the original Koine Greek of both Matthew and Mark (Luke actually follows the oral tradition that Paul has in 1st Corinthians. If you compare all four accounts of the consecration, you’ll see that there are two oral traditions being passed down. Paul has one, which Luke follows, and Mark has another, which Matthew follows. Neat huh?) I’ve noticed that the Greek has the same “poured out for the many”, which, if we translate the Jewish idiom correctly means that the blood of the New Covenant is being poured out for all.

That’s one (present vs future) I didn’t see. Good catch.

But didn’t the liturgy predate the codification of the New Testament? (As well as the Vetus Latina which predated the Vulgate.) But then I don’t know what the Latin or Greek consecration was in the first century. (And yes, archaeologists have found that Latin was used in the liturgy as early as that.)

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Not to sound too obnoxious and nitpicky, but that to me is another dubious translation of the Latin. Why do we always say “take” or “receive” when the Latin word is “accipite” (from which our English word “accept” comes from) and not “recipite”? But no bishop has ever said much about it so I guess it must be okay.

Accipite means receive, basically ‘take up’. Take this up to you.

 

[ProVobis]

Accipite means receive, basically ‘take up’. Take this up to you.

But I can receive and not accept, right? Or accept and not receive, for that matter.

I don’t think anyone really knows what the most literal interpretation is in the English. However, Latin has a set of interesting distinctions here (all under capere, “take, receive.” The past participle may give us a clue as to its closest English cognate. This is not to say its the best translation but at least hints as to the etymology of the word.)

Accipere (ad(to)+capere) acceptus
Concipere (com(with)+capere) conceptus
Excipere (ex(from)+capere) exceptus
Incipere (in(in)+capere) inceptus
Praecipere (prae(before)+capere) praeceptus
Recipere (re(back)+capere) receptus
Suscipere (sus(under)+capere) susceptus

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’d print Veterum Sapientia in all OF Missals.

!