I do not know which is the proper thread placement for this nor if you guys have already covered this, but ... why was the translation changed from "for many" to "for all" in the Eucharistic prayer in the Mass ... and why is it such a source of controversy -- or is it? Can anyone help me to understand what is going on here?
I do apologize if this is the wrong "forum" for this, but you can re-direct it if you wish ...
in the first place, why did it say "for many" and what does that mean? Does it mean, in fact, 'for all' as well? Are the terms interchangeable?

Christ's Blood was shed intentionally for all men, so that all men may potentially benefit from it, but only many will actually go to heaven. Thus it was truly shed for all men and many will be saved.

The original text of the words of the Consacration in all the liturgies of the Universal Church is "for many" and not "for all." Even in the original latin text of Vatican II's Mass it is the same, the words are "for many" or pro multis and not "for all". The main problem are the vernacular translations of that Mass. It's interesting that most American tradcaths blame the ICEL for the mistranslation, while it is found unofficially in most vernacular translations of the Mass.

The thing here is that it is hard to know if the words were mistranslated in order to help people to understand it better, or were deliberately changed with other intentions that would affect the interpretation of the words.

The Orthodox translations of the Liturgy are enough clear and do not permit any ambiguity. The Byzantine Catholic translations I have seen are also very good and do not have mistranslations.

This was a topic of conversation with a friends' husband who belongs to the ROCOR. He was criticizing some "modernist attitudes" of other Orthodox jurisdicitions claiming that they don't jold the tradition, so I asked him why the ROCOR if it was truly traditional, had most liturgies in English with translations that came from the OCA and other jurisdictions.

Then the discussion was about liturgical problems and Byzantine Catholics in Canada and USA and well he said: "oh I'm surprised most foreigners I know are quite enthusiastic about Byzantine Catholicism claiming that they did preserve their traditions, but you ignore that it's part of the same body which permits such liberalisms. Byzantine Catholics also have guitar liturgies, rock liturgies, and changes in the words of the Consacration"

(Don't worry I don't believe him )

So -- Christ died and rose for all, but it said "for many" because of those who "preferred darkness to the light," that is, those who'd live evil lives and who, even at the moment of death, refused to repent of the evil -- is that what is meant? So it's many instead of all though we're still praying 'for all,' aren't we, as we offer the Mass/Divine Liturgy?
Sorry if my questions are rather basic ...

In my pre- Byz days some friends and I were discussing it. I remembered someone telling me the Council of Trent explained why it was for many and not for all. The home we were visitng in just happened to have a copy of the Council of Trent and by golly it did explain why it was for many and could not be for all. I never found out why VII made the change after what a prior council stated. I went on to better things(Byz. Church).

Nicky's Baba

This question is FOR the Roman Catholics only, since Byzantine Catholic Church do not have this "for all" translation.

So you are at the wrong place for this question. It's something that the Roman Catholic Church in the USA changed during the innovation of Novus Ordo Mass.

I'm sorry if I seem kind of rough on you in my answer, but I just don't feel that there should be a place for discussion on this forum regarding to Roman Catholic Church and her problems, that is in my HUMBLE OPINION only.

However, to answer your question, as "for many" translation, would be more accurate since many people do not accept His shedding of His Blood for them (salvation) (like Judas Iscariot) and many others do accept His salvation. But I honestly can't give you the true answer as I'm not a theologian or anybody special, just a brutally honest person.

This "for many" text is an original verse, even in the post-Vatican II mass (when it came out the first few years before all of these weird changes of the Liturgy took place).

Please forgive my bluntness, it's just that I try to avoid getting involved with the discussion on this forum about the Roman Catholic Church because it can get heated here. So, I have to remind myself to stay focus on the BYZANTINE issues/topics on this Byzantine Forum (as well as other Eastern Catholic issues/topics. So, please do not ever ever take this personally. I am not personally attacking you and I am not attacking the Roman Catholic Church. I just have absolutely no interest in the RCC that's all.

Happy Holidays,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Dear SP,
I'm afraid I do take it personally. I happen to like asking questions here, as I get many informative and insightful answers. I am new to both the internet and to the Church. I can quite easily ask people this question elsewhere, not a problem. So, please everyone including you, pardon me if I have asked a question I shouldn't have asked. I will certainly erase it if the moderator/administrator wishes me to do so and I do apologize in advance.

Spundas et al:

Let's try to be a little more gracious in how we deal with questions on this forum.

CoS: Please be aware that this particular question is loaded. The "traditionalist" Catholics will attempt to show that the Mass of Paul VI is no longer valid because of this change. Therefore, the question may be perceived as being anti-Catholic.

To answer your question, however, the Church at Vatican II felt that the seige mentality of Trent was no longer necessary. Scripture makes it clear that Christ died once for all so to say that His blood was shed "for all" is correct. Also, the Aramaic expression that leads to the Greek "huper pollon" or the Latin "pro multis" actually carries a connotation of all in the same sense that one could say of a plane crash where all died "the many lives that were lost" simply indicating a large number.

Trent's explanation was based upon the Latin translation, and "pro multis" does not carry the same connotation as the original. Thus, in effect, the Council at Trent was providing a new meaning based upon a translation rather than on the original. At the same time, the Church Fathers there were trying to convey the message that although Christ died for all, not all would take advantage of the offer of salvation.

Edward, deacon, sinner and moderator

Dear Father Deacon Ed,
Thank you for your answer. I find all of this interesting, and I appreciate being able to understand things such as these of which I have had no prior knowledge (I didn't know about the fact that it had even been translated differently or that it was a big deal -- TILL NOW!)

Greetings!

CoS:
After joining the Byzantine Church from the Latin Church, I too asked this question. Seems to me that it's a valid question. Sometimes it's the little differences in Liturgy that grab hold of our minds.

To be honest, I had a ton of questions in the beginning, i.e. standing, kneeling, sign of the cross, Immaculate Conception, icons, music, sin, salvation, and on and on and on. Understanding a new perspective can be overwhelming at times. I'd also like to take this moment for all who answered my questions with civility and patience. To all of you I am very grateful.

Perhaps CoS you could look for instructional books on the Byzantine Church. I'm sure your pastor can give you some help there.

Your Sister in Christ,
Loretta

Matthew 26:27-28 : Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them. "All of you must drink from it," he said, "for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (NAB)

Mark 14:24: He said to them: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many. (NAB)

Just looked this up in a couple of sources (including the Jerome Biblical Commentary). Each state that the use of "is shed for many" was simply the Sematic way of saying "for all". My guess is that both the Byzantine and Latin texts are simply being very faithful to the original. It is my understanding from some Roman Catholic priest friends that future adjustments to the translations of the Roman Mass will be to make it more faithful to the actual Scriptural texts. The confusion over this issue in the Roman Catholic Church highlights the importance of our liturgical texts being perfectly faithful to the original source texts.

This is an excerpt of the Roman Catholic defense of the "for all" phrase:

ChristTeen287