In John Allen's recent "Word from Rome" column, we make note of an interesting contradiction in the choice between the use of "pro multis" (for many) and "pro omnibus" (for all) in the upcoming new translation of the text of the Canon of the Mass.
"Last week I noted that the new English translation of the Mass currently awaiting reaction from bishops' conferences uses the phrase 'for all' in Christ's words over the cup to translate the Latin pro multis, exactly like current practice. Some traditionalists believe it should be 'for many.'
In a footnote, I observed that John Paul's April 2003 encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, says 'for all' even in the Latin version. In paragraph two, where the pope cites Christ's words, he writes: '...qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum.' This, I suggested, is an indication that the pope is not troubled by the 'for all' translation.
Several readers pointed out that things are not so simple. While the Latin version of the encyclical issued by the Vatican press office, and the one that appears on the Vatican web site, contains the language I just cited, that is not the version that appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official registry of the Holy See.
I asked a friend in the Vatican to look it up, and sure enough, in Volume XCV of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, on page 434, the Latin text reads pro multis, not pro omnibus.
One Vatican source told me this is less rare than one might think. Often experts catch small errors in documents after they’re initially released, so that by the time they appear in the Acta some 'touch-up' has been done. It is the version in the Acta that is considered definitive."
So how is it that one erroneous translation can be used to support another? Sounds like the Vatican version of rendering Supreme Court decisions; that is, justifying present judgements on past errors. One never ceases to be amazed how they can get away with it.
The argument goes that, since we know that Our Lord's Sacrifice was offered for all, even though not all would accept it, therefore it is best to translate "pro multis" as "for all"; not to mention that some are actually trying to cook the books so that the original documents say "pro omnibus" as well. Besides, priests can always explain, in their (a-huh-hum) homilies and other catecheses, that the only ones to be saved are those who accept the Sacrifice of the Cross. Those who reject It will not be saved. Period. I don't know about you, but I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have heard anything remotely similar to that.
It is far more likely, nowadays, to hear homilies extolling how the mercy of Jesus will lend forgiveness to all, and that there is virtually no one who will be damned, and how Purgatory does not exist, and how each person will be able to make a free choice for or against Christ after their death... The litany of nonsense goes on ad nauseum. Our everyday encounter with these assertions is pretty compelling evidence that the ICEL translation has encouraged a deviation from the norm of Church teaching on the matter. That's about as mildly as I can manage to put it.
Instead of going around the bend a dozen times, trying to explain what should have been obvious in the first place, why not just leave the translation as it was originally intended to be: that is, "pro multis" being translated as "for many"? In this way, the English Mass will finally be consistent again with that of other languages. And, if there really is anyone out there who is losing sleep over the possibility that Jesus' Sacrifice will not reach everyone, we can easily come back with the straightforward reply that not everyone will accept the grace that has been offered.
But instead, there seems to be a preference for all things confusing. How many more need to be led down the path of a false notion of believing who will be saved? I, for one, am a strong proponent of keeping things simple. If it's an accurate translation, doctrinally sound, and catechetically direct, then what's the holdup?
Further, returning to the "pro multis" formulation even gives redress to one of the notorious sore points of contention with traditional Catholics. As far as I am concerned, even a symbolic gesture such as this can go a long way toward healing the rift with disaffected traditionalists. Any action that takes at least some of the wind out of their sails has got to be worth something, with regard to reconciliation. To me, it's a no-brainer. The Church should offer the change to traditionalists as an incentive to make peace, and then see how much mileage they can get out of it.
Please don't think I am making light of the Mass, or advocating its manipulation as a political ploy. I'm just saying that, if doing what is right can have other side benefits as well, then why not play it up for all it's worth?
According to Footnote 14 in the current draft translation of the Order of Mass:
"The translation of pro multis as 'for all' has been retained in the proposed text as a rendering of the original biblical text, even though it does not appear to be a literal translation. An equivalent translation of pro multis is offered in the Eucharistic words of institution in Spanish (por todos los hombres), Italian (per tutti), German (für Alle), and Portuguese (por todos homens). A rationale for this translation is given in Notitiae, Volume VI (1970), pp. 39-40, 138-40, which states: '...secundum exegetas verbum aramaicum, quod lingua latina versum est , significationem habet : multitudo pro qua Christus mortuus est, sine ulla limitatione est, quod idem valet ac dicere: Christus pro omnibus mortuus est …' And: '… in adprobatione data huic vernaculari variationi in textu liturgico nihil minus rectum irrepsit, quod correctionem seu emendationem expostulet.'"
(The Latin translates as: "According to Aramaic scholars, the word which has been translated into Latin as pro multis has the meaning pro omnibus: the complex of peoples for whom Christ died is without any limitation, which is the same as saying: 'Christ died for all.' In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing has come out which would demand a correction or a change.")
[Via John Allen]