Pope Francis on Friday appeared to wade into one of the most contentious liturgical debates in Catholicism in recent years, siding with his predecessor Pope emeritus Benedict XVI by insisting that Christ died “for many,” instead of using the phrase “for all.”
“The ‘many’ who will rise for eternal life are to be understood as the ‘many’ for whom the blood of Christ was shed,” Francis said. “They are the multitude that, thanks to the goodness and mercy of God, can experience the life that does not pass away, the complete victory over death brought by the resurrection.”
Francis argued that “for many” better captures the sense that human beings have to make a choice during this life, either for or against God.
“Awakening from death isn’t, in itself, a return to life,” the pope said. “Some in fact will awake to eternal life, others for eternal shame.
“Death renders definitive the ‘crossroads’ which, already here in this world, stand before us: The way of life, that is, the one that leads us to communion with God, or the path of death, that is, the one that leads us away from Him,” the pontiff said.
The pope’s words came during a homily as he was saying Mass for the eternal response of the 14 cardinals and bishops who’ve died in the past year. The list of cardinals includes American William H. Keeler, Indian Ivan Dias, German Joachim Meisner, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor from the United Kingdom, and Italian Carlo Caffarra.
The phrase “for many,” used both in the Gospel of Mark (14:24) and Matthew (26:28), has been debated repeatedly over the past two decades by liturgists, theologians, and others. Used in the Roman Mass during the Eucharist prayer with reference to the blood of Christ, its Latin original is “pro multis.”
The most recent English translation of the full quote currently is: “Which will be poured out for you, and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.”
When the Roman Missal was translated into the vernacular, many initial translations used “for all” instead of “for many” to represent the phrase pro multis. Hence, Catholics who had Mass in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or German would say that Christ “came for all,” while the Polish, the Dutch or the French would say he came for “many.”
In 2006, the Vatican decreed that in translations of the revised edition of the Roman Missal published in 2002, the phrase was to be translated literally, as “for many.” The official version in English has been published, using that literal translation. However, that change for several other languages is still in the works.
The 2002 translations were to follow the Liturgiam Authenticam instructions issued on March 2001 by the Vatican’s Divine Worship office.
Among those still working on the translation, both Italians and Germans have opted to maintain the use of “for all,” delaying the translations. In 2012, then Pope Benedict XVI sent a letter to the German bishops’ conference, urging them to adopt the “for many” form, explaining that the “for all” was the result of a consensus among bishops after the Second Vatican Council, but that it was an “interpretation” more than a translation.
Full story at Crux.
I am surprised and delighted by Pope Francis.
When it comes down to brass tacks the Holy Spirit won’t let Francis make a serious error. Glad to see that the Holy Spirit showed up for work for once during this pontificate.
Why, because he actually believes it is important to stay true to the original intent, and he translates the Latin correctly? Really, does that deserve “bonus points?” An attaboy? Perhaps according to the current standard HE has set, maybe so. AND BTW, why does this article say: ‘Christ “came” for many,’ when the phrase in question is “poured out His blood” for many? Or ‘shed His blood,’ or the like. Catholic writers today write with such sloppiness, and even when the question is the “exactitude” of the idea, the thought, through exact translation, they slop around that. Good grief they are terrible, sloppier than the shorts and flip flop crowd at the local church. I’m not a crank, BTW, but Catholicism is becoming…
We will have to wait and see what happens “when the rubber hits the road”; i.e., when one of the translations which still translates “pro multis” as “for all” (such as the Italian or German) comes before the Vatican for its “recognition” by the Liturgy Congregation or by the Papacy, which until now has reserved to itself the right to approve the translation of the Sacramental formulae.
Hahaha. Francis says this, but then turns over the actual decision to the local ordinaries on a country by country basis. Don’t be rubes; Francis planned this to provide the sort of ambiguous cover that is adored by Vatican II devotees. See what the Germans do with this, and the Italians. Hahaha.
On the one hand, it is perfectly certain that Christ’s universally redemptive will is that ALL be saved; on the hand, it is also certain that the Mass, in referencing the FRUITS of Christ’s holy Sacrifice on the Cross, the words of Consecration must needs identify — and in doing so, specify no more than that — MANY constitute the consequent fruit of Christ’s Sacrifice. Whence the Church’s traditional usage: MANY. But let’s look at what is happening in some parishes today. I have in mind that upstart enclave of priests who, in still refusing to say MANY, try to elide the whole question by saying neither MANY nor ALL. How do we
reply to these upstarts? In Book V, Vol. IX of the Pohle-Preuss MANUAL OF DOGMATIC…
In my prior post, I left hanging the question how to reply to those priests who, still refusing to say FOR
MANY, have gone on to decide — in this they are too-clever-by-half — to elide the question altogether by saying neither FOR MANY nor FOR ALL at MASS. A reply to those priests who resort to this sorry gambit can be found in Book 5, Volume 9 of Monsignor Joseph Pohle’s MANUAL OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss (2014 [1923]:209). Here we are assured that “all theologians agree” that following the consecratory words HOC EST CORPUS MEUM,–HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS, for a priest to go ahead and “omit the other words proscribed by the Church, especially in the consecration of the
chalice, would be a grievous sin…
I have never heard any priest pray “for all” after the liturgical changes in 2011.
Both Greek and Hebrew & Aramaic have a definite article (the) unlike Latin and the Slavic languages. In the consecration “many” is referring to THOSE WHO ARE AT THE EUCHARISTIC LITURGY (for YOU) and those at other Eucharistic liturgies.. Thus neither “all” or “the many” can be used. The thought is that Christ’s Sacred Blood “is being poured out for you here and now and “many” who are participating in the Eucharist Liturgy through out the world. It is not a universal statement but a LITURGICAL one. The UNIVERSAL dogmatic statements go like this: God wills that all men be saved; but not all are going to be saved. Those who WILL BE SAVED are saved by God’s grace; those who are NOT saved are damned by their own choice…
In reply to Peter Saveinini: If I understand you correctly, you claim that the consecratory word MANY refers
to the many persons who are not presently assisting at the Mass — let us say, at the Mass here-and-now. My short reply is this claim is (1) neither the case at the Mass here-and-now nor (2) was it the case at Christ’s Last Supper and First Mass — indeed, at Christ’s First Mass, where — need I say — “other Eucharistic liturgies” had yet to come-to-be. I leave to Charles Borromeo the long reply to you: “The additional words FOR YOU AND FOR MANY… serve to declare the fruit and advantage of [Christ’s] Passion… but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not…
So true: “If we look at the fruit which mankind have received from [Christ’s Passion], we shall easily see
that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race…” (Charles Borromeo).
To complete the thought of St. Charles Borromeo: Once we take as given that the words FOR YOU AND
FOR MANY serve to declare the fruit and advantage of Christ’s Passion; once, in St. Charles’ own words,
“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…. 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….”
What is it that took place October 22, 1967 that warranted and still warrants the designation Black Sunday? ~
Reply forthcoming.
On Sunday, October 22, 1967, the ICEL (International Committee for English in theLliturgy) removed the Church’s authentic Eucharistic language (“for you and for many”) and replaced it with a false translation (“for
you and for all that sins may be forgiven”). Happily, today, fifty years later, Black Sunday has been
reversed. “For many” has been restored to its rightful place in the Eucharistic language of the Mass.
As soon became evident, the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), in the name of the
spirit of Pope John XXIII’s Council, disdained Pope John’s own insistence on the importance of Latin (see
VETERUM SAPIENTIA); but also, as Fr. Lawrence Brey has pointed out, the ICEL scanted Pope John XXIII’s
APOSTOLIC LETTER ON THE PRECIOUS BLOOD, “in which he speaks of ‘the religious worship of the
Most Precious Blood of the Incarnate Word, which is shed “for many unto the remission of sins’ (June 30, 1960, AAS 52-545)” (Brey, “Translator’s Comments,” ‘THE SALMATINCES’ RESPONSE TO DE LUGO ON
THE FORM OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE, July 1, 1976).