Catholic liturgy: "for many" rather than "for all"
As part of my ongoing, deeply respectful (hardy har har har) inquiry into the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, I point to this item from Aidan Firewalker:
I think the reduction of "all" to "many" is a violation of the spirit of those passages, even though it is is a more accurate rendition of the Latin. Maybe the original Latin could be improved upon, but I know it's probably futile to suggest such a thing. Thank God for the Protestant revolution. They still suffered from the delusion of the existence God, but at least they rid themeslves of the institutional delusions of Catholic tradition. I guess there are only so many errors one can throw off at a go. Too bad the protestants smashed all that art, though. One thing about Catholicism, it sure knew how to put on a show. Smashing art is bad, even if the art sucks.
But the commenters on World Catholic News where this story is posted don't feel like Aidan and me. They think the change from "all" to "many" is great. Apparently, they've been pushing for it for some time. The translation "for all" was viewed as a Vatican II hippie-excess of the 60's or something. Dude, Jesus of the synoptic gospels was a hippie. Indeed, he is the archetypal hippie. Certainly, he had a lot more in common with hippies than with the prada-sporting pontiff who claims to be steward of his Church. Anyway, those commenters are delighted with the restoration of purity in the liturgy.
I wonder if Sullivan will hear about this and comment on it. Maybe I'll send him an e-mail?
Pope Benedict XVI has decided that translations of the Roman Catholic liturgy must use the phrase "for many" in the words used to consecrate the wine, rather than "for all," which is currently in use.Aidan is now a Wiccan and so isn't directly affected by this, but still rightly feels the need to speak out. Heck, I've never considered myself Catholic but I have enough respect for Christian ideas to be offended by the implied shrinkage of those who are supposed to be able to benefit from Jesus' sacrifice. My favorite Christian idea is that you should love everyone, not just those who deserve it or who are a member of your special club. This idea is illustrated in Matthew 5:44-45: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." It is also illustrated, though from a somewhat different angle, in the parable about the vineyard workers.
[...]
What does it mean to say instead that the blood of Jesus "will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven"? Although the Vatican strenuously denies it, the implication is clear: contrary to everything that Christianity has ever taught, Jesus of Nazareth did not die for everyone. Why else would you say "for many" instead of "for all"? The Vatican's position, which is essentially that Jesus died "for all" but the liturgy must say "for many," makes absolutely no sense. Either Jesus died "for all" as Christianity has always taught and the Latin words of consecration are wrong, or Jesus died "for many" and the millennia old teaching of Christianity is wrong. The Vatican can't have it both ways. As Catholic conservatives are so fond of saying: Lex orandi, lex credendi -- the law of prayer is the law of belief. If Catholics pray that Jesus died "for many" and not "for all," then doesn't that mean that Catholics believe that Jesus died "for many" and not "for all"?
I think the reduction of "all" to "many" is a violation of the spirit of those passages, even though it is is a more accurate rendition of the Latin. Maybe the original Latin could be improved upon, but I know it's probably futile to suggest such a thing. Thank God for the Protestant revolution. They still suffered from the delusion of the existence God, but at least they rid themeslves of the institutional delusions of Catholic tradition. I guess there are only so many errors one can throw off at a go. Too bad the protestants smashed all that art, though. One thing about Catholicism, it sure knew how to put on a show. Smashing art is bad, even if the art sucks.
But the commenters on World Catholic News where this story is posted don't feel like Aidan and me. They think the change from "all" to "many" is great. Apparently, they've been pushing for it for some time. The translation "for all" was viewed as a Vatican II hippie-excess of the 60's or something. Dude, Jesus of the synoptic gospels was a hippie. Indeed, he is the archetypal hippie. Certainly, he had a lot more in common with hippies than with the prada-sporting pontiff who claims to be steward of his Church. Anyway, those commenters are delighted with the restoration of purity in the liturgy.
I wonder if Sullivan will hear about this and comment on it. Maybe I'll send him an e-mail?
Comments
There is indeed an interesting history behind this. It was argued by 20th century Protestant (Lutheran, I think) bible scholar Joachin Jeremias that the phrase "for many" in Hebrew/Aramaic really means "for all." Wikipedia says:
The claims of Joachim Jeremias, that Christ used for many to signify for all because there was no word in the Aramaic language for all were debunked by the Catholic Traditionalist scholar and apologist Patrick Henry Omlor.
It would be absurd to claim that any language has "no word for all," and I doubt Jeremias actually said that. It smells like a straw man to me, and it would hardly be the only tendentious statement in that article (which looks badly in need of NPOVing). Rather, the point would be that "for many" can have the sense of "for the multitude" in the Northwest Semitic langauges (and you will note that "for the multitude" can mean "for all" even in English.)
In 2003, the future Benedict XVI wrote:
The fact that in Hebrew the expression “many” would mean the same thing as “all” is not relevant to the question under consideration inasmuch as it is a question of translating, not a Hebrew text here, but a Latin text (from the Roman Liturgy), which is directly related to a Greek text (the New Testament). The institution narratives in the New Testament are by no means simply a translation (still less, a mistaken translation) of Isaiah; rather, they constitute an independent source.
The reference to Isaiah is aparently to chapter 53, which of course Christians see as refering to Jesus. But the words pro multis do not occur there, nor indeed anywhere in the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew Bible. THey do, however, occur a number of times in the New Testament.
Are they a "mistaken translation"? Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far. But the fact is that the New Testament is just littered with "Semitisms"--phrases that would be considered more stylish and/or would make more sense in Hebrew or Aramaic than they do in Greek. Most scholars, for reasons not clear to me, tend to downplay these, but no one with any background in the languages could deny that they're there.
So to my mind, "for the multitude" would indeed be a valid translation here. At least linguistically: I make no claims to being a Catholic theologian.
1) Jesus died to save all and to deny that is not in any way a Christian attitude, 2) God lovingly leaves people free to reject salvation and some do...
Mad Latinist -- That's interesting, what you've written about "for the multitude." In some languages, pro multis is translated as "for the many," and early on in the new English translating process there was some talk that the English-speaking bishops would also go with "for the many." Now it seems that the Vatican has closed that door. I would have found "for the many" acceptable, in that it has a different context than "for many." I would also have found "for the multitude" acceptable. But "for many" definitely has a context of exclusion, and I don't think the English-speaking bishops should accept "for many," but I'm sure they will.