A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH
Why "For All" in the Words of Consecration?
ROME, 7 SEPT. 2004 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
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 translations from the Latin and Italian were done for personal reasons by a priest friend of mine several years ago. They are an accurate translation but, as is obvious, cannot be considered official.
The official January reply (slightly adapted here) is typically brief and uses the usual form of a succinct query and reply.
The query states:
"In some vernacular versions the words of the formula for the consecration of the wine 'pro multis' are translated in the following way: in English 'for all men'; in Spanish 'por todos' and in Italian 'per tutti.'
"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down through the 'Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V' is to be held outdated?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. St. Augustine will help recall this: 'You see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations? They are very ungrateful for their price, or very proud, who say that the price is so small that it bought the Africans only; or that they are so great, as that it was given for them alone.' (Enarr. In Ps. 95, n. 5)
"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."
Since the debate continued unabated, the Vatican congregation weighed in with Father Zerwick's May article entitled "Pro vobis et pro multis effundetur" which expounded the biblical justifications for the change from "many" to "all." The following text, while sometimes a trifle technical, is sufficiently clear:
"A response was already given in Notitiae, n. 50 (January 1970), pp. 39-40, to the difficulty that in the vernacular interpretations of the words of the consecration of the wine 'pro omnibus' was used in place of 'pro multis.' Since, however, some uneasiness seems to persist, it seemed that the matter should be addressed again a little more extensively from an exegetical point of view.
"In that response, one reads: 'According to exegetes the Aramaic word, which in Latin is translated "pro multis," means "pro omnibus."' This assertion should be expressed a little more cautiously. To be exact: In the Hebrew (Aramaic) language there is one word for 'omnes' and another for 'multi.' The word 'multi' then, strictly speaking, does not mean 'omnes.'
"But because the word 'multi' in different ways in our Western languages does not exclude the whole, it can and does in fact connote it, where the context or subject matter suggests or requires it. It is not easy to offer clear examples of this phenomenon. Here are some:
"In 3 Esdras [Ezra] 8:3 we read: 'Many have been created, but only a few shall be saved.' It is clear that all have been created. But here the interest is not in the whole, but in the opposite of 'few.' Hence, 'many' is used, when it truth it means 'all.'
"In the Qumram text Hodayot IV, 28, 29, both words 'many' and 'all' are found in a synonymous parallel (two parallel verses in which the same thing is said twice): 'You have worked wonders among the many on account of your glory that you might make known to all your great works.'
"Moreover, in Qumram 'many' (with or without the article) came to be a technical term (almost a name) for the community of all the full-fledged members, and thus just in the 'rule' of the sect it occurs in around 30 places.
"We come now to the texts of the New Testament with which we are particularly concerned: Romans 5:12,15. Here the comparative argumentation from the minor premise to the major is set up between the universality of Adam's sin and the universality of Christ's grace: 'Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (after the insertion of verses 13 and 14, the comparison continues) 'But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.' Let us note: 'all' those of the first part become the 'many' (with an article) of the second part. Just as sin affects all, or rather much more, so also grace is destined for all.
"Mark 10:45 = Matthew 20:28 has Jesus' words: 'the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.' That 'for many' ambiguous in itself, in fact is to be understood as 'for all,' proven by what we read in 1 Timothy 2:6: 'Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.'
"But even if we didn't have this authoritative interpretation, that 'for many' nonetheless should certainly be understood as 'for all' because the coming of Jesus ('he came in order to give ...') is explicitly carried out for the purpose which can abundantly be shown to have as its object the whole world, i.e. the human race as a whole.
"John 1:29: 'Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin (singular!) of the world!'
"John 3:16,17: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him ... may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.'
"1 John 2:2: 'he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.'
"1 John 4:14: 'And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.'
"1 Timothy 4:10: '... we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.'"
"These texts, however, have the Eucharist itself in view:
"John 6:33: 'For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.'
"John 6:51: 'the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.'
"Given all this, it can indeed rightly be asked, not so much what the words 'pro multis' in the consecration mean, but rather given all this evidence, why 'pro omnibus' is not explicitly said.
"In response, it seems that
"1) in the primitive Palestinian Church, considering both their soteriology and their Semitic mind-set, there was no misunderstanding that had to be avoided by employing the formula 'pro omnibus.' They could freely keep the traditional 'pro multis' because those Christians sensed and marveled at the beauty of that original formula 'pro multis.'
"2) 'pro multis' seems to have been used by Jesus himself, because evoking the memory of Chapter 53 of Isaiah about the Servant of Yahweh who sacrifices himself, it is suggested that Jesus would fulfill what was predicted about the Servant of Yahweh. The main text is Isaiah 53:11b-12: 'The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death ...; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.'
"Therefore the formula 'pro multis' instead of 'pro omnibus' in our texts (Mark 10:45 = Matthew 20:28; Mark 14:24 = Matthew 26:28) seems to be due to the desired allusion to the Servant of Yahweh whose work Jesus carried out by his death.
"This brings us now to another question: Why therefore in our liturgical version this venerable original 'pro multis' should yield to the phrase 'pro omnibus'? I respond: because of a certain accidental but true inconvenience: the phrase 'for many' — as it is said — in our minds (not forewarned) excludes that universality of the redemptive work which for the Semitic mind could be and certainly was connoted in that phrase because of the theological context. However, the allusion to the theology of the Servant of Yahweh, however eloquent for the ancients, among us is clear only to the experts.
"But if on the other hand it is said that the phrase 'for all' also has its own inconvenience, because for some it might suggest that all will actually be saved, the danger of such an erroneous understanding is estimated to hardly exist among Catholics.
"Besides, the change which the words of the consecration underwent was not unique nor the first. For the traditional Latin text already combines the Lucan text 'pro vobis' with the phrase of Mark and Matthew 'pro multis.' And that is not the first change. For already the liturgy of the early Church (Mark-Matthew) seems to have adjusted the saying over the chalice to the formula pronounced over the bread. For originally that formula of the chalice according to Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) and Luke (22:20) was: 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.' — a formula which was excellent perhaps in depth, but not really in clarity.
"It is clear how the Church of the Apostles was not interested in preserving the very voice of the Lord even in the words of the consecration, certainly cited for the first time as such by Jesus himself." ZE04090722
* * *
Follow-up: Why "For All" at Consecration? [from 09-21-2004]
There was quite a reaction from several quarters regarding the Sept. 7 column on the question of translating the "pro multis" as "for all." Some readers even sent in tracts arguing that this change of translation made the consecration invalid.
In some cases it was clear that the readers had read the article with excessive haste and attributed to my pen what was in fact a translation from an official source of the Holy See. In one case it was an official response to a doubt and in the second an article by the theologian M. Zerwick which cannot be considered official as such but which received the approval of the Holy See and was published at its request.
I certainly do not possess the theological and exegetical capabilities shown by Zerwick in his brief but dense article.
A reader from England stated that the article basically accused 2,000 years of popes, saints and theologians of being wrong in their interpretation of the "pro multis."
Rereading the article I cannot see how this can be true. The article does not create an opposition between the past and the present; it accuses nobody of ever having being wrong.
The thrust of the article's argument was that the expression used by Jesus, which literally means "the many," did not exclude, and probably included, the connotation that he died for all.
The argument also recognizes, and indeed could not do otherwise, that "for all" is not a correct literal translation for "pro multis." It does sustain, however, that it is a correct translation from a theological standpoint and does not substantially change the meaning of the consecration.
The article also defends the position of all those, including some saints and popes, who distinguished between the Lord's sacrifice being sufficient for the salvation of all, while being efficacious only for many and especially those who cooperate with grace at Mass.
This is a valid and true distinction that is not challenged by the translation because it is true as such even though the doctrine can no longer call upon the text of the consecration in English, Spanish or Italian, as supporting evidence.
Indeed, this doctrine would still have been true even if, hypothetically, the Latin text had said "pro omnibus" instead of "pro multis." It does not stand or fall on this point.
Zerwick's article thus did no more than reaffirm and elaborate what the Holy See had explicitly and officially stated in its brief earlier reply.
Regarding the accusation that this change could render the consecration invalid, I cannot analyze here all of the arguments offered. But to say the least I remain unconvinced.
St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (III pars q. 78 art. 3) teaches that the complete consecration formula, and not just "This is the cup of my blood," forms part of the substance of the sacramental form. This opinion is generally accepted in Church documents.
Therefore a change which would alter the essential meaning of the formula would render the consecration invalid.
This is where it appears to me that some of the objectors tend to beg the question, for they assume that the translating of "pro multis" as "for all" constitutes such an essential change. But this is exactly the point to prove.
If the expression "pro multis" were essential to the consecration, then this formula would necessarily be found universally in the consecration rites of all ancient Eucharistic Prayer texts. And indeed the vast majority of them do use "pro multis."
However, the oldest known Eucharistic Prayer of all, the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (circa A.D. 225), uses the following formula: "This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you do this, do it in memory of me."
Since this formula has been used continually in some Eastern and African Churches for almost 1,800 years, it is difficult to sustain that "pro multis" is absolutely essential even though in some cases the "pro multis" has been added to this prayer at a later date along with other modifications.
Finally, since the Holy See has taken a clear and official position on the non-erroneous nature of this translation, the only logical conclusion — unless we consider ourselves wiser than the Church — is to accept that the change does not constitute a substantial or essential modification of the formula and that to effect such an adaptation falls within the Church's power over the sacraments.
Theological arguments aside, we can be sure that God would never allow the Church to err on a point so essential as the valid consecration of the Eucharist. From the moment that these translations have been approved by the Church, there can be no doubts whatsoever as to their validity.
One may discuss their opportunity, literary correctness, etc., but not their validity. ZE04092122
This article has been selected from the ZENIT Daily Dispatch
© Innovative Media, Inc.
ZENIT International News Agency
Via della Stazione di Ottavia, 95
00165 Rome, Italy
To subscribe http://www.zenit.org/english/subscribe.html
or email: firstname.lastname@example.org with SUBSCRIBE in the "subject" field