"For many" or "for all"?

[Denise]

Vatican Diary / "For many" or "for all"? The right answer is the first

Benedict XVI writes as much to the German bishops. And he wants the whole Church to respect the words of Jesus at the last supper, without inventing others like in the postconciliar missals. The complete text of the pope's letter

by ***




VATICAN CITY, May 3, 2012 – The Churches of various nations of the world are restoring one after another, in the Mass, the words of the consecration of the chalice taken verbatim from the Gospels and in use for centuries, but in recent decades replaced almost everywhere with a different translation.

While the traditional text in its foundational Latin version still says: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei […] qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur," the new postconciliar formulas have read into "pro multis" an imaginary "pro omnibus." And instead of "for many," they have translated "for all."

Already in the last phase of the pontificate of John Paul II, the attempt was made by a few Vatican officials, including Joseph Ratzinger, to revive in the translations fidelity to "pro multis." But with no success.

Benedict XVI has taken the situation in hand personally. Proof of this is in the letter that he wrote last April 14 to the bishops of Germany.

The complete translation of the letter is reproduced further below. In it, Benedict XVI summarizes the main issues of the controversy, to substantiate better his decision to restore a correct translation of "pro multis."

But in order to understand the context thoroughly, it is helpful to recall a few elements here.

*

In the first place, in addressing his letter to the bishops of Germany, Benedict XVI also intends to address through them the bishops of the other German-speaking regions: Austria, the German cantons in Switzerland, South Tyrol in Italy.

If in Germany, in fact, although with strong resistance, the episcopal conference recently opted to translate "pro multis" no longer with "für alle," for all, but with "für viele," for many, in Austria this is not the case.

And not in Italy either. In November of 2010, in a vote, out of 187 voting bishops only 11 sided with "per molti." An overwhelming majority voted in favor of "per tutti," indifferent to the Vatican guidelines. Shortly beforehand, the episcopal conferences of the sixteen Italian ecclesiastical regions, with the sole exception of Liguria, had spoken out for the retention of the formula "per tutti."

In other parts of the world they are returning to the use of "for many": in Latin America, in Spain, in Hungary, in the United States. Often with disagreement and disobedience.

But Benedict XVI clearly wants to see this one all the way through. Without impositions, but urging the bishops to prepare the clergy and the faithful, with appropriate catechesis, for a change that must come no matter what.

After this letter, it is therefore easy to predict that "per molti" will also be restored in the Masses celebrated in Italy, in spite of the contrary vote of the bishops in 2010.

The new version of the missal, approved by the Italian episcopal conference, is currently under examination by the Vatican congregation for divine worship. And on this point it will certainly be correct according to the pope's guidelines.

*

A second annotation concerns the continual obstacles that the restoration of a correct translation of "for many" has encountered on its way.

Until 2001, the proponents of more "free" translations of the liturgical texts appealed to a document put together in 1969 by the "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia," the secretary of which was Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, an unsigned document unusually drafted in French, ordinarily cited by its first words: "Comme le prévoit."

In 2001, the congregation for divine worship published an instruction, "Liturgiam Authenticam," for the correct implementation of the conciliar liturgical reform. The text, dated March 28, was signed by cardinal prefect Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez and by archbishop secretary Francesco Pio Tamburrino, and had been approved by John Paul II in an audience granted eight days before by cardinal secretary of state Angelo Sodano.

Recalling that the Roman rite "has its own style and structure that must be respected in so far as possible in translation," the instruction recommended a translation of the liturgical texts that would be "not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language." Good translations – the documents prescribed – "must be freed from exaggerated dependence on modern modes of expression and in general from psychologizing language."

The instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam" didn't even cite "Comme le prévoit." And it was a voluntary omission, to deprive that text definitively of an authority and officiality that it had never had.

But in spite of that, the instruction encountered extremely strong resistance, even within the Roman curia, so much so that it was ignored and contradicted by two subsequent pontifical documents.

The first is the encyclical of John Paul II "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" of 2003. In paragraph 2, where it recalls the words of Jesus for the consecration of the wine, it reads: "'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' (cf. Mt 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)." The "for all" there is a variation that has no basis in the biblical texts cited, evidently introduced from listening to the translations present in the postconciliar missals.

The second document is the last of the letters that John Paul II customarily addressed to priests each Holy Thursday. It was dated Policlinico Gemelli, March 13 2005, and in the fourth paragraph said:

"'Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur.' The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the whole man and of all men. This salvation is integral and at the same time universal, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ's blood: 'qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur.' It is a sacrifice offered for 'many,' as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28; cf. Is 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord's blood is 'shed for you and for all,' as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ's flesh is truly given 'for the life of the world' (Jn 6:51; cf. 1 Jn 2:2)."

John Paul II had his life hanging from a thread, he would be dead about twenty days later. And it was a pope in this condition, without even the strength to read anymore, who was made to sign a document in favor of the formula "for all."

At the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which had not been given the text ahead of time, the matter was noted with disappointment. So much so that a few days later, on March 21, Monday of Holy Week, in a tumultuous meeting of the heads of some dicasteries of the curia, Cardinal Ratzinger registered his protests.

And less than a month later, Ratzinger was elected pope. Announced to the world with visible satisfaction by cardinal protodeacon Medina, the same who had signed the instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam."

*

With Benedict XVI as pope, the restoration of a correct translation of "pro multis" immediately became an objective of his "reform of the reform" in the liturgical arena.

He knew that he would encounter tenacious opposition. But in this arena he has never been afraid of making tough decisions, as proven by the 2007 motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" for the liberalization of the Mass in the ancient rite.

One fact of great interest is the manner in which Benedict XVI wants to implement his decisions. Not exclusively with peremptory orders, but through persuasion.

Three months after his election as pope, he had the congregation for worship, headed at the time by Cardinal Francis Arinze, conduct a survey among the episcopal conferences to find out their views on the translation of "pro multis" with "for many."

Having gathered these views, on October 17, 2006, at the instructions of the pope, Cardinal Arinze sent a circular letter to all the episcopal conferences, listing six reasons in favor of "for many" and urging them – wherever the formula "for all" was in use – to "undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful" in view of the change.

It is the catechesis that Benedict XVI suggests be made in Germany in particular, in the letter he sent to the German bishops last April 14. In which he points out that it does not appear to him that this pastoral initiative authoritatively suggested six years ago has ever been undertaken.

Two marginal notes on the papal text: 1) The "Gotteslob" is the common book of hymns and prayers in use in the German-speaking Catholic dioceses. 2) The citation "May thanks be given to the Lord who, by his grace, has called me into his Church..." is the last verse of the first stanza of a song frequently sung in German churches: "Fest soll mein Taufbund immer stehen".

__________



"WE ARE MANY AND WE REPRESENT ALL..."


Excellency!
Reverend, dear archbishop!

On the occasion of your visit on March 15, 2012, you made me aware of the fact that, with regard to the translation of the words "pro multis" in the prayer of the canon of the holy Mass, among the bishops of the German-speaking area there as yet exists no consensus.

It appears that there looms the danger that, in the new edition of the "Gotteslob," the publication of which is expected soon, some parts of the German linguistic area would like to maintain the translation "for all," although the German episcopal conference agrees in writing "for many," as desired by the Holy See.

I promised you that I would express myself in writing on this important question, in order to prevent such a division in the most intimate setting of our prayer. I will see to it that this letter, which through you I address to all the members of the German episcopal conference, will also be sent to the other bishops of the German-speaking area.

Allow me to say a few words on how this problem arose.

In the 1960's, when the Roman missal, under the leadership of the bishops, had to be translated into German, there existed an exegetical consensus over the fact that the term "the many," "many" in Isaiah 53:11f was a Jewish form of expression to indicate the whole, "all." The word "many" in the institution accounts of Matthew and Mark was thus considered a semitism that should be translated with "all." This was also extended to the translation of the Latin text, where "pro multis," through the evangelical accounts, referred to Isaiah 53 and therefore was supposed to be translated with "for all."

Since then this exegetical consensus has crumbled; it no longer exists. In the account of the last supper of the unified German translation of Sacred Scripture, we read: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many" (Mk 14:24; cf. Mt 26:28). This makes evident something very important: the translation of "pro multis" with "for all" was not a pure translation, but rather an interpretation, which was, and still is, well founded, but is an explanation and therefore something more than a translation.

This fusion between translation and interpretation is in certain ways part of the principles that, immediately after the Council, guided the translation of liturgical texts into the modern languages. There was full awareness of how far the Bible and the liturgical texts were from the contemporary world of language and thought of the people, so that even translated they would continue to be incomprehensible to those who participated in the services. A new risk was the fact that, through translation, the sacred texts would be opened there before those participating in the Mass, and yet would remain very far from their world, and moreover this distance would become more visible than ever. There was therefore felt not only the authorization, but even the obligation to insert interpretation into translation, in such a way as to shorten the path to the people whose hearts and minds were to be reached by those words.

To a certain extent the principle of a content-oriented and not necessarily literal translation of the fundamental texts continues to be justified. Since I often pronounce the liturgical prayers in the various languages, I note that sometimes there are almost no resemblances to be found among the different translations and that the common text on which they are based is often only vaguely recognizable. At the same time, trivializations have been seen that constitute real failures. So over the course of the years I myself have understood more and more clearly that, as guidance for translation, the principle of structural rather than literal correspondence has its limitations.

Following these intuitions, the instruction for translators "Liturgiam Authenticam," promulgated on March 28, 2001 by the congregation for divine worship, again brought to the forefront the principle of literal correspondence, naturally without prescribing a unilateral verbalism.

The important intuition that lies at the foundation of this instruction is the distinction, already cited at the beginning, between translation and interpretation. This is necessary both for the words of Scripture and for the liturgical texts. On the one hand, the sacred word must emerge as much as possible for what it is, including with its foreignness and with the questions that it bears with it. On the other, the Church is entrusted with the task of interpretation so that – within the limitations of our respective comprehension – the message that the Lord has destined for us may reach us.

Even the most accurate translation cannot replace interpretation: it is part of the structure of Revelation that the Word of God should be read in the interpretive community of the Church, that fidelity and modernization should be joined together. The Word must be present as what it is, in its proper form, which may be foreign to us; interpretation must be measured on the basis of its fidelity to the Word, but at the same time must make it accessible to those who hear it today.

In this context, the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the missal, the expression "pro multis" should be translated as such, without being interpreted. The interpretive translation "for all" must be replaced with the simple translation "for many." I would like to recall that in both Matthew and Mark, there is no article, so not "for the many," but rather "for many."

If from the point of view of the fundamental correlation between translation and interpretation this decision is, as I hope, entirely understandable, I am however aware that it represents an immense challenge for all those who are entrusted with the task of explaining the Word of God in the Church.

For those who attend Mass regularly, this almost inevitably appears as a fracture at the very center of the sacred rite. They will ask: but didn't Christ die for all? Has the Church changed its teaching? Can it do that, is it permitted? Is a reaction at work that wants to destroy the heritage of the Council?

Thanks to the experience of the last fifty years, we all know how profoundly the modification of liturgical forms and texts impacts the souls of persons, and therefore how much a change in such a central point of the text may disquiet persons. Precisely for this reason, when in the presence of the difference between translation and interpretation the selection of the translation "many" was made, it was also established that in the different linguistic areas the translation had to be preceded by careful catechesis, by which the bishops had to explain concretely to their priests, and through them to the faithful, why this had been done.

This preliminary catechesis is the essential precondition for the application of the new translation. As far as I know, in the German-speaking area such a catechesis has not yet taken place. My letter is intended to be an urgent request to all of you, dear confreres, to prepare such a catechesis now, in order to speak of it with your priests and at the same time make it accessible to the faithful.

In this catechesis, it must first of all be clarified briefly why in the translation of the missal, after the council, the word "many" was rendered as "all": to express in an unmistakable way, in the sense intended by Jesus, the universality of the salvation that comes from him.

Then, however, the question arises immediately: if Jesus died for all, why in the words of the last supper did he say "for many"? And why do we insist on these words of institution of Jesus?

First of all, at this point it must still be clarified that according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said "for many," while according to the Luke and Paul, he said "for you." This seems to tighten the circle even more. But it is precisely by starting from here that the solution can be approached. The disciples know that the mission of Jesus transcends them and their group; that he came to bring together the children of God from all over the world who had been scattered (Jn 11:52). The words "for you," however, make the mission of Jesus very concrete for those present. They are not some anonymous element of an immense whole, but rather each one of them knows that the Lord died precisely for him, for us. "For you" is extended into the past and into the future, it is addressed to me personally; we, who are gathered together here, are known and loved as such by Jesus. Therefore this "for you" is not a restriction, but rather a concretization that applies to every community that celebrates the Eucharist, which unites it in a concrete way with the love of Jesus. The Roman canon has united these two biblical expressions in the words of consecration, and therefore says: "for you and for many." With the liturgical reform, this formula was adopted for all the Eucharistic prayers.

But once again: why "for many"? Didn't the Lord die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, as Son of God made man, is the man for all men, the new Adam, is one of the fundamental certainties of our faith. In this regard I would like to recall just three verses of the Scriptures. God "gave for all of us" his only son, Paul says in the letter to the Romans (8:32). "One died for all," he affirms in the second letter to the Corinthians with regard to the death of Jesus (5:14). Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all," it says in the first letter to Timothy (2:6).

But then it really must be asked once more: if this is so obvious, why does the Eucharistic prayer say "for many"? Now, the Church has taken this formulation from the accounts of the institution in the New Testament. It uses it out of respect for the word of God, in order to be faithful even in word. Reverential fear before the very word of Jesus is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic prayer. But then we ask: why did Jesus say this? The real reason consists in the fact that in this way, Jesus made himself recognized as the servant of God in Isaiah 53, that he revealed himself as the figure announced by prophecy. The reverential fear of the Church before the word of God, the fidelity of Jesus to the words of "Scripture": this twofold fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation "for many." In this chain of reverent fidelity, we take out place with the literal translation of the words of Scripture.

Just as before we saw that the "for you" of the Pauline-Lucan tradition does not restrict but makes concrete, so also now we can recognize that the dialectic between "many" and "all" has an importance of its own. "All" moves on the ontological plane: the being and activity of Jesus embraces the whole of humanity, the past, the present, and the future. But in fact, historically, in the concrete community of those who celebrate the Eucharist, he comes only to "many." One can therefore recognize a triple meaning of the attribution of "many" and "all."

In the first place, for us who are able to sit at his table, it must signify surprise, joy, and gratitude for having been called, for being able to be with him and to know him. "May thanks be given to the Lord who, by his grace, has called me into his Church..."

Then, however, in the second place this is also a responsibility. The form in which the Lord reaches others – "all"- in his own way ultimately remains one of his mysteries. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly a responsibility to be called directly by him to his table in order to hear: for you, for me he suffered. The many have responsibility for all. The community of the many must be light on the lampstand, city on the hill, leaven for all. This is a vocation that concerns each one in an entirely personal way. The many, who we are, must have the responsibility for the whole, in the awareness of their mission.

Finally a third aspect could be added. In contemporary society, we have the sense of not being "many" at all, but rather very few, a tiny cluster that continues to diminish. And yet no, we are "many": "After that an immense multitude appeared, which no one could count, of every nation, race, people, and language" (Rev 7:9). We are many and we represent all. Therefore the words "many" and "all" go together and refer to each other in responsibility and in promise.

Excellency, dear confreres in the episcopate! With all of this I wanted to point out the fundamental guidelines of the catechesis by which the priests and laity must be prepared as soon as possible for the new translation. I hope that all of this may also serve for a more intense participation in the celebration of the sacred Eucharist, becoming part in this manner of the great task that we will have to face with the "Year of Faith." I can hope that the catechesis may be prepared soon, and in this way may become part of the liturgical renewal for which the Council worked from its first session.

With paschal greetings of blessing, yours in the Lord.

Benedictus PP XVI

April 14, 2012

[KarlB]

Goes to show you the dangers and distortions inherent in vernacular translations, imho.. perhaps with the best of intentions, but with little appreciation for the affects generated by revising seminal phrases to meet modern sensibilities.