"Most Catholics forget that the Church throughout the centuries has always frowned upon an all-vernacular Roman Rite liturgy..."

Post-Conciliar Vatican Finally Tells the Truth About Pro Multis

by John Vennari

            According to a new Vatican ruling, pro multis must be translated as “for many” in all new translations of the “Eucharistic Prayer”.

            Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, sent this Papal directive to the heads of the world’s episcopal conferences. The Cardinal’s letter, reports the Nov. 19 Catholic World News, “directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts ‘in the next one or two years’”

            The CWN report continues, “Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as ‘for all’ not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and His Church. The more natural translation ‘for many’ more accurately suggests that while Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.”

            Cardinal Arinze’s letter explains the reasons for correcting the translation:

• The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” 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.

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

• 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.

• “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

• 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.

• In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions. [1]

            It is gratifying to see the Vatican — after 40 years of allowing a mistranslation that pitted various Catholics against one another — finally tell the truth about the proper translation of pro multis. The traditionalist position on this point is vindicated. The regime of novelty has taken a small step backward. And though we recognize the justice of this long-overdue correction, we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture.

            Most Catholics forget that the Church throughout the centuries has always frowned upon an all-vernacular Roman Rite liturgy. The infallible Council of Trent anathematizes such a proposal. Session XXII of the Council of Trent teaches “If anyone saith that the Rite of the Roman Church ... ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only ... let him be anathema.” (Canon IX) Granted, Cardinal Stickler pointed out that the Council of Trent only rejected the exclusivity of the “vulgar” language in the sacred rites, he also pointed out that these are more than disciplinary measures, but based on doctrine.

            Cardinal Stickler went on to explain, “the Church has always defended the sacred tongue and even recently Pius XI expressly stated that this language should be non vulgaris. For these self-same reasons Canon IX [of Trent] established excommunication against those who affirm that the rite of the Roman Church, in which a part of the Canon and the words of consecration are pronounced silently, must be condemned. Even silence has a theological background.”[2]

            It is impossible to know what the Vatican II Council Fathers had envisioned when in 1962 they approved the ambiguous Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. But it seems the last thing many of them envisioned was a liturgical revolution that included an all-vernacular Canon. Even Cardinal Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, said in an early Council debate that it is unthinkable that the Canon of the Mass be said in the vernacular. [3]

            Likewise, Father H.P.R. Finberg, a conservative member of ICEL who publicly critiqued ICEL’s mutilated translations, said in 1967, “Three years ago, when inquiry was made in Rome concerning the chances of permission being given for reciting the Canon of the Mass in the vernacular, the post-Conciliar liturgical Consilium replied with an emphatic NO.” The Consilium reportedly modified its attitude “under pressure from various episcopates.”[4]

            The various episcopacies, who lobbied for an all-vernacular liturgy in the euphoric period immediately after Vatican II, completely ignored the Church’s solemn warnings against liturgy in the vulgar tongue. Once such warning was renewed not so long ago.

            In 1794, Pope Pius VI in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei against the Synod of Pistoia, condemned the propositions to express the liturgy in the vernacular language or uttering it in a loud voice as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, and favorable to the charges of heretics.”[5]

            These very points condemned by Pius VI are constitutive elements in the Novus Ordo Mass now celebrated in every parish worldwide, even when pro multis is properly translated as “for many”.

            This is all made worse by the fact that the Novus Ordo itself is a Protestant construct. The famous Critical Study, also known as the Ottaviani Intervention, rightly critiqued the Mass as departing from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent; and containing much that would “gladden the heart of the most modernist Protestant.” This was a critique of the New Mass in the original Latin, in its “purist" form.

            Thus, as Father Paul Kramer notes elsewhere in this issue, the Novus Ordo “is not only illicit insofar as it constitutes a break with tradition as a new rite, but it suffers the even more grave defect of not giving accurate expression to the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.”

            The struggle to restore Catholic Tradition to liturgy, doctrine and social teaching will be long and arduous. While we may be glad for this small step regarding the proper translation of pro multis, let us not lose sight of the vast regions of the Church that must be restored to an expression of Catholic Faith and Liturgy that would be recognized as such by Pope Pius XII and his predecessors.

Notes:

1. "Pro Multims means 'for many', Vatican rules', Catholic World News, Nov. 19, 2006
2.  “Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass”, Catholic Family News, July, 1996.
3. Audio Cassette: “Comments on Vatican II”, Interview with Michael Davies, Keep the Faith Inc.
4.  “The Canon in English”, Father H.P.R. Finberg, The Tablet, November 18, 1967.
5. #33, Auctorem Fidei, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Pope Pius VI.

Reprinted from the December 2006 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292 *  cfnjv@localnet.com

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)  • Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy

  Home  •  Audio Cassettes   • New DVD Offer • CFN Index