words of consecration

[XPICTIANOC]

recently in some of catholic forum in Poland has started a topic about problematic words of consecration. What Am I talking about?

with words are used in your language
for many or
for all

**pro multis or pro omnibus **

I’d like to see various languages… as more as it is possible

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

recently in some of catholic forum in Poland has started a topic about problematic words of consecration. What Am I talking about?

with words are used in your language
for many or
for all

**pro multis or pro omnibus **

I’d like to see various languages… as more as it is possible

The Novus Ordo mass in english has mistranslated the words pro multis as “for all”.

Here are some quotes you might find interesting.

Catechism of the council of Trent: " "The additional words for you and for many are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of his Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. **When, therefore, Our Lord said for you, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added and for many, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of and to the elect only did his Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb 9:28) when he says: “Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many,” and also the words of Our Lord in John: “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine” (Jn 17:9).

**St. Alphonsus Liguori: **"The words Pro vobis et pro multis (“For you and for many”) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits; for the Blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all — it saves only those who cooperate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV” (The Holy Eucharist).

In case you aren’t aware, Rome came out with a document earlier this year that finally admitted - after 37 years of saying the contrary - that “for all” is incorrect and needs to be changed to “for many”.**

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yes, and in 2009 they will finally be correcting this mistake, along with other mistakes such as the response “And also with you”.

In Czech there is the same error.

I think that Polish and French have the correct translation and much better translation in general. At least I’m certain that in Polish they say “And with your Spirit”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Rome. . . finally admitted - after 37 years of saying the contrary - that “for all” is incorrect and needs to be changed to “for many”.

To be fair, I think, we should qualify what was “incorrect.” The document said that the translation is a poor translation, but that “for all” is a correct interpretation of Christ’s intention.

Pax et Caritas, what is it exactly that you say Rome has been saying for 37 years? That “for all” is an accurate translation? Could you provide a source for that? Let’s face it, its a horrible translation of “pro multis” – has anyone tried to defend it linguistically?

Or are you saying that Rome has been saying for 37 years that “for all” is theologically correct (and is a valid consecration too!) and now has reversed her position?

Not the latter surely? – because Rome hasn’t reversed on that: “for all” is still theologically correct (not to the exclusion, of course, of “for many”) AND “for all” still makes for a valid consecration.

Thankfully the more accurate translation is on its way.

Rome, 17 October 2006

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).

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:

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.

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 (cite omitted). 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).

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.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[HailMary]

recently in some of catholic forum in Poland has started a topic about problematic words of consecration. What Am I talking about?

with words are used in your language
for many or
for all

**pro multis or pro omnibus **

I’d like to see various languages… as more as it is possible

There is no difference. Consider how St. Paul wrote:

11 And not only so; but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

In one sentence he used the word “many” and “all” to describe the same context.

 

[XPICTIANOC]

there is a different becouse words of consecration are quoted from Gospel and we dont need to change this words! Jesus knew what he is talking about,so … leave the ancient form. As someone wrote, pro multis is in all eastern traditions, as I am right, the error of pro omnibus (for all) is watched after secound vatican council so I think it is child of Novus Ordo.

Once agine we see that latin language in lithurgy could save as from many problems as wrong translation

z Bogiem!

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

“For many” and “for all” can mean different things depending on how one interprets them (obviously ) but I agree that it is a waste of time to argue endlessly about it. As the Catechisms of Trent and St. Pius X teach, not all the words in the form of consecration are absolutely essential. I do suspect that the mistranslation had a modernist motive behind it, and we all can agree that it did nothing but cause scandal, so the sooner the translation error is fixed the better.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas, what is it exactly that you say Rome has been saying for 37 years? That “for all” is an accurate translation? Could you provide a source for that? Let’s face it, its a horrible translation of “pro multis” – has anyone tried to defend it linguistically?

With respect to the translation that Rome now admits is incorrect, they previously stated that “nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment.”

Here is a quote from the official document:

Q: A very conservative friend of mine says she cannot attend Mass in English because the translation of the consecration renders the words “pro multis” (for many) as “for all.” She says this is a heresy. Is she right? — J.S., Washington, D.C.

A: Here I will supply the answer which the Holy See gave to a similar question 34 years ago. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments first gave a brief official reply in January 1970 and later commissioned a brief but dense article on the subject by noted Jesuit scholar M. Zerwick, published in the May 1970 edition of Notitiae, the congregation’s official organ (pages 138-140). …

"The following is asked:

"a) Is there a good reason, and if there is, what is it, for deciding on such a variation?

"b) Whether the doctrine regarding this matter handed down through the ‘Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V’ is to be held outdated?

"c) Whether the versions of the above-mentioned biblical text are to be held less appropriate?

"d) Whether in the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text something less correct crept in, and which now requires correction or amending?

"Response: The above variation is fully justified:

"a) According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated ‘pro multis,’ means ‘pro omnibus’: the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all…

"b) In no way is the doctrine of the ‘Roman Catechism’ to be held outdated: the distinction that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many, still holds its value.

"c) In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment." ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

How many times was that documents thrown at myself and others when we were defending the correct translation? Now, Rome has completely reversed itself and said that something less than perfect did indeed creep in.

It is interesting that those who defended the wrong translation - such as virtually every well known “apologist” - was dead wrong. They were defending an error and at the same time ridiculing those who stood for the truth. What a consolation it was when Rome finally admitted the obvious.

Interestingly, these same “aplogists” also claimed that the Old Mass had been forbidden - abrogated and replaced by the new. It took 37 years, but once again they were proved to be dead wrong when Pope Benedict stated the exact contrary in Summorum Pontificum. Another time of consolation for those who stood by the truth for 37 years, and another humiliating experience for those who ridiculed them for it.

Thank heavens we now have a Pope who is willing to admit the hard truth publicly. Some of his Bishops threatened to go into schism if he admitted the truth, but he called their bluff and did so anyway. That is the kind of Pope we need. He may not be called “The Great” by the world, but if he keeps that up he will be by heaven.

 

[jj2011]

there is a different becouse words of consecration are quoted from Gospel and we dont need to change this words! Jesus knew what he is talking about,so … leave the ancient form. As someone wrote, pro multis is in all eastern traditions, as I am right, the error of pro omnibus (for all) is watched after secound vatican council so I think it is child of Novus Ordo.

Once agine we see that latin language in lithurgy could save as from many problems as wrong translation

z Bogiem!

Thank you, XRICTIANOC, you’re quite right except that the “for all men” was introduced in the USA in 1967, a little before the NOM was promulgated.

By the way, what’s up with your bishops trying to prevent implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum?
I would expect this kind of thing in France or Germany, but in Polonia fidelissima?

Let us pray that all our priests and bishops return to sound doctrine and the traditional liturgy.

 

[XPICTIANOC]

Thank you, XRICTIANOC, you’re quite right except that the “for all men” was introduced in the USA in 1967, a little before the NOM was promulgated.

By the way, what’s up with your bishops trying to prevent implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum?
I would expect this kind of thing in France or Germany, but in Polonia fidelissima?

Let us pray that all our priests and bishops return to sound doctrine and the traditional liturgy.

yes NOM was promulgated in 1969 but in 1967 was first step to new lithurgy - Missa Normativa, I’m not sure how is exacly looked like but I know it’s stared after Vaticanum II.

About “SP”… hm… I can’t understand some polish bishops, so I won’t explain you what is happening here, but recently one of them - archibishop of Lublin msgn Zycinski, attended in Tridentina Mass The most important is , archiboshop Zicinski is known as a liberal and proggresiv hierarch

Bug for God there is nothing impossible

 

[jj2011]

yes NOM was promulgated in 1969 but in 1967 was first step to new lithurgy - Missa Normativa, I’m not sure how is exacly looked like but I know it’s stared after Vaticanum II.

About “SP”… hm… I can’t understand some polish bishops, so I won’t explain you what is happening here, but recently one of them - archibishop of Lublin msgn Zycinski, attended in Tridentina Mass The most important is , archiboshop Zicinski is known as a liberal and proggresiv hierarch

Bug for God there is nothing impossible

Thank you, XPICTIANOC. I hope you can keep us informed about any positive developments in Poland or eastern Europe.

 

[XPICTIANOC]

ok

 

[nkbeth]

there is a different becouse words of consecration are quoted from Gospel and we dont need to change this words! Jesus knew what he is talking about,so … leave the ancient form. As someone wrote, pro multis is in all eastern traditions, as I am right, the error of pro omnibus (for all) is watched after secound vatican council so I think it is child of Novus Ordo.

Once agine we see that latin language in lithurgy could save as from many problems as wrong translation

z Bogiem!

Exactly!

I think that those who say “many” could mean “all” may be forgetting that when the priest speaks the words of consecration he is a mystical Christ; it is Christ who is speaking (through the priest) what should be Christ’s OWN WORDS – not some new interpretation of them.

The words Christ spoke came down to the Latin rite and to eastern rites by tradition, in somewhat different forms, but with the same essential meaning. The Church stated that the form in Latin required “multis” not “omnibus” (and not both), and Latin was the official language of the Church.

It isn’t enough to use an interpretation that matches ONE of the many usages in the Bible. Christ knew the meaning of His own words that HE used at the Last Supper. He knew that we might interpret them in different ways – but do you think He wanted us to CHANGE His words to match OUR interpretation?

“For many” and “for all” can mean different things … but I agree that it is a waste of time to argue endlessly about it.

We should pray endlessly about it (and peacefully discuss it as we can)

As everyone reading this thread probably knows:

The consecration of the Mass is at the very heart of the Church. By the consecration Christ comes to us (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) in the Holy Eucharist, for our adoration and reception in Holy Communion. But the consecration is also the center of the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. In the Mass CHRIST (mystically through the priest) offers HIMSELF (fully present in the Holy Eucharist) to His Father for our sakes, perhaps especially during the transubstantiation itself.

Christ’s (BLOODY) Sacrifice of the Cross occurred only at a single point in history. An absolutely IDENTICAL (Bloody) Sacrifice could not be offered again. The Sacrifice of the Cross brought about the REDEMPTION of ABSOLUTELY ALL MEN, once and for all; it was ABSOLUTELY SUFFICIENT for ALL men to be saved. Christ gave infinite satisfaction for our sins.

But Christ instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for a special purpose. Understanding this purpose helps explain why the word “many” is used.

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says:

362. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood and was physically slain, while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because* Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us**, while **in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross. ***

Christ’s purpose for the Sacrifice of the Mass is not to redeem all men again; it is to apply or distribute the graces He won among the many (certainly not all) who accept them. Christ’s death is **SUFFICIENT for all but only ** EFFICACIOUS for many. There are many Masses said, not just one; Christ’s graces are not applied all at once, but over all our lifetimes, primarily through the Mass.

So using the word “all” instead of “many” could divert even good men away from the very purpose of the Mass. It also could divert them away from the purpose of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross - to save, not just to redeem.

I think that the Mass is the greatest treasure of the Church (remember it contains the Holy Eucharist). It is the primary way that the Mystical Body participates in the salvation of men, through the graces won by Christ. What an unimaginable gift this is to the Church, to truly share in Christ’s sacrifice.

Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body. At the Last Supper He said: Do this for a commemoration of me. How can the Mystical Body DO what He did, unless it SAYS what He said?

It is wonderful that Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summum Pontificum has begun to restore the Latin Tridentine Mass. But let’s pray that the complete restoration will follow soon…

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

From the Bull of St Pius V July 14, 1570

Translation of the
DE DEFECTIBUS DECREE
of St. Pius V
in the Roman Missal

"V.I. Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows:

For this is My Body

and:

For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change in meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin."

 

[cam100]

From the Bull of St Pius V July 14, 1570

Translation of the
DE DEFECTIBUS DECREE
of St. Pius V
in the Roman Missal

"V.I. Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows:

For this is My Body

and:

For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change in meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin."

This bull pertains to both unchangable matter and form, as instituted by Our Lord, and changeable prescriptions governed by the Church. For example, not all Catholic rites in across all ages have used the same words of consecration. (Our Lord didn’t use those exact words, either!) This does not mean that they are all thereby committing mortal sin, although the bull says “An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin”. That is because such variations have also been sanctioned by the Church, which has the power to do so.

Although the Church cannot change the matter and form of sacraments, it CAN DEFINE what constitutes such matter and form, and settle disputes about whether certain situations meet the criteria. The Church has permitted “for you and for all”, so we are assured of its validity, even if we do not prefer it. However, the use of such a translation is only licit as long as the Church permits it.

 

[Evan]

Benedict XVI claims both translations (for all and for many) are accurate. But he is a theologian and understands the nuances of the latin better than many (or is it better than all).