Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walking_Home
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Walking_Home

Guest
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

Pro multis means “for many,” Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as “for many” in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
…

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world’s episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal’s letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts “in the next one or two years.” …
 
Praise the Lord and pass the missals … having said that, if they can take such great action on this point why on earth are they letting so many liturgical abuses slide hmmm?
 
Twas sent my way.
Prot. N. 467/05/L
Click to expand...
Rome, 17 October 2006
Click to expand...
Your Excellency,
Click to expand...
In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).
Click to expand...
The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Excellency in the following terms:
Click to expand...
  1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation “for all”, “per tutti”, or equivalents.
Click to expand...
  1. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).
Click to expand...
  1. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
    a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
Click to expand...
b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
Click to expand...
c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
Click to expand...
d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
Click to expand...
e. The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
Click to expand...
f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.
Click to expand...
With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Excellency,
Click to expand...
Devotedly Yours in Christ,
Click to expand...
Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect
Click to expand...
 
Let us thank the Blessed Virgin Mary for her intercession.

Ave Maria gratia plena dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus ventris tui Jesus. Sancta Maria Mater Dei ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
 
I loved the first commnet in the discussion below the article.

DOES THIS MEAN FOR MANY OF THE BISHOPS OR FOR ALL OF THE BISHOPS:D 😃 😛
 
I note how the Vatican’s letter (correctly) agrees with my note on this forum about Greek “polloi”, despite the obstinate obfuscation of some…

However, never forget that a major problem with translations and the USCCB/NCCB/ICEL is moving at glacial paces when it suits them. There have been cases where Rome has set a time limit, and nothing has happened. So, some questions to keep in mind:
  1. American Catholics use a Breviary that was published in 1975-6 as the translation of a 1971-2 original. Besides a small supplement (1992) for a few new feasts, American Catholics remain deprived of the major second edition of the Breviary (1985-7) and the most recent feasts (2001, 2004). There is no excuse under the sun for why after 21 years the bishops couldn’t see to the release of the new Breviary.
  2. The Martyrology has now entered a second edition…and no English version exists.
So, in this age of instant communication, etc., the American bishops seem unable to get th newest liturgical texts to their flocks in a timely fashion in translation. Whereas in the “old days” a new text would be near-instantaneous (all in Latin, of course), today we must wait TWO DECADES for a translation of the Breviary.

Utterly unacceptable, and what I would call a “silent scandal.”
 
Perhaps we will see these corrections one at a time… so as to not shock the laity who so eagerly accepted the errors in the first place.👍

God Bless Cardinal Arinze:thumbsup: 👍

Next up??? … and with your Spirit ???

.
 
I’m glad to see this happen, we sure have been waiting for it for a while!

I was gratified, also, to see this section:
  1. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared. Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women.
Click to expand...
which I would hope would persuade the “non-validity” camp. . . but I have to wonder will even the phrase “there is no doubt whatsoever” be enough to persuade those who are entrenched?

Although I could see how one could argue that the question of validity is now a moot point (given the implementation of the above directive), I would suggest that it is still something to be concerned about, practically. Why? Because it seems to me that just as insidious as the “spirit of Vatican II” is the “spirit of dissent”. . . and those who held that the Vatican promulgated an invalid consecration seem to be heading down that road, and my heart goes out to them.

Anyone have any thoughts on that concern?
VC
 
AlexV said:
I note how the Vatican’s letter (correctly) agrees with my note on this forum about Greek “polloi”, despite the obstinate obfuscation of some…
Click to expand...
Don’t snap your arm out of the socket, patting yourself on the back.
 
Whereas in the “old days” a new text would be near-instantaneous (all in Latin, of course), today we must wait TWO DECADES for a translation of the Breviary.
Click to expand...
Heck, in the old days even an english translation would come out rather quickly!

The Latin would, yes, be instantaneous. But the english used to be rather quick too (there was, remember, even an english edition of the 1961 breviary already in 1963)

Now…they don’t even have to bother with the second translation…they can move right on to the third edition I think…
 
Whoo hoo! No more ranting about this one! 👍
Click to expand...
Oh, there will be. It will just change forms.

The schismatic types, wanting to make their complaints more grave than mere disruption of tradition and de-beautifying of the liturgy (which are grave enough for me)…want to find a CRISIS to justify their actions and make their beliefs seem truly heroic and theologically necessary. For some of them, it can’t just be that the new mass is irreverent and totally un-catholic…it must be invalid, to legitimize their fuss.

Now all the "pro multis MUST be ‘for many’ " group are just gonna start insisting that “mysterium fidei” be put back in (even though eastern rites don’t all have it)…or that mass is only valid in ancient languages…or something…

At the very least, the most radical will claim that the use of “for all” in the past made all the ordinations from that period invalid and thus it doesnt matter if they “go back” and fix it later. But not all the ordinations were in English speaking countries…well, then, they’ll say…it still demonstrates that, like the anglicans, the Church by allowing it was supplying improper Intent to the ministers, so its all invalid…

For those who want to believe, for their own reasons, that the new mass is invalid and Rome has apostasized…nothing will change their minds…
 
demerzel85 said:
Let us thank the Blessed Virgin Mary for her intercession.

Ave Maria gratia plena dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus ventris tui Jesus. Sancta Maria Mater Dei ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
Click to expand...
Amen!

on a side note, do you know where I can get an MP3 of the latin prayers?
 
It’s too bad this didn’t come out before we ended up with forum casualties.

I guess late is better than never.
 
Well this should be interesting. We’ll all get to see who is obediant and who is not.
 
My guess is that some of the not-so-awfully-schismatic like some SSPX, will welcome it and, though they have other issues, I suspect many will at least trust the Vatican more than they now do.

The radical schismatics, like SSPV, will take it only as “verification” that they are right in everything, and will always find some way to remain schismatic, no matter what the Church does, because they want their own church, pure and simple. But they also want to claim that they are the “true” Church. So even if they didn’t have another excuse, they would remain schismatic over the temperature of the water in the holy water font.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top