A seemingly minor piece of news may foretell a shift of emphasis in Catholic culture, as the Vatican has ruled that the formula for consecration of wine at Mass must be translated “for many” rather than “for all”. The traditional Roman liturgy, as well as all the ancient eastern liturgies, follows the Gospels in declaring that the blood of the New Covenant would be shed “for many, unto the remission of sins.” This move will please those traditionalists who have questioned the legitimacy and even the validity of the “for all” consecration used in many vernacular Masses, and it comes on the heel of rumors that the Pope will issue a universal indult for the practice of the traditional Roman liturgy.
This reaffirmation of tradition undermines two aspects of the “progressive” liturgical enterprise: historical criticism and linguistics. Modern liturgists have often rationalized their novelties as restorations of primitive Christianity, prior to the accretions of the medieval and Tridentine periods. This pseudo-traditionalism has all the credibility of a man who would honor his grandfather by disparaging his father, and more pertinently, it is often unsubstantiated by historical fact. In the case at hand, the advocates of the “for all” translation speculate that the original Aramaic word (conveniently lost to history) could have had this meaning, despite the fact that the Evangelists (including Aramaic-speaking Mark) render it in Greek as polloi, not pantes. Moreover, the context, “shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins,” suggests restriction to those whose sins are remitted. As a matter of liturgical history, all the ancient rites of the east and west use “for many” in the consecration. In the face of this evidence, we can conclude that advocates of the erroneous translation are motivated less by the dictates of exegesis and historical criticism than by a favoritism for a more inclusive-sounding theology.
The Holy See is also insisting on a more literal rendering of the editio typica of the Roman liturgy, which is in Latin. Notwithstanding the speculations about Aramaic, the authoritative version of the Roman liturgy is in Latin, which renders the consecration formula, “pro multis.” All vernacular translations are supposed to be faithful to this edition, and no one can credibly argue that “for all” is an accurate translation of the Latin. It is not the task of the translator to second-guess the Latin version and return to the supposed original source in Aramaic, but only to translate the Latin as it reads. The current Roman liturgy is actually closer to the traditional liturgy than many English-speakers realize, owing to the distorted and paraphrased English translations. This effective usurpation of authority over the text of the Mass by liturgical translators can be expected to recede over the next few years.
Cardinal Arinze expressed the view that teaching how Christ’s sacrifice is intended “for all,” though effective only “for many,” is a subject for catechesis, not liturgy. This amounts to a refutation of any rationalistic, social engineering model of liturgy. The liturgical reform proposed before and during the Second Vatican Council was intended to renew some apostolic forms that had been lost through the centuries and eliminate some redundancies, but in a way that was respectful of received forms. Many of the reform generation, unfortunately, had insufficient reverence for tradition as such, and to some extent directed the liturgy away from the eternal God, and more toward the supposed “needs of the people,” evincing a profound failure to understand the basic function of liturgy and ritual. This well-intentioned, well-planned liturgy has never been as aesthetically endearing as the old, for the simple reason that culture cannot be synthesized. Like most “progressive” artifacts of the sixties and seventies, the liturgical aesthetic from that period already seems dated, so many churches have traded their aesthetic heritage in exchange for kitsch. The Vatican’s present inclination is to restore some of what was heedlessly discarded, so that the Church may engage modern culture, yet retain an authentic culture of its own.