Some tine ago, when a former Pope was in the USA and said Mass, he said that the Blood was shed for all. However, in the Mass today, it is said that the Blood was shed for many. Which is correct? Was the Pope wrong?
The Latin is “pro multis” which is more correctly translated as “for many,” but the understanding is that it is shed for all, regardless. The translation has changed.
The blood of Christ was shed for all. Many, but not all, accepted the sacrifice,
The end meaning is that it was shed for all, even those that in the end did not accept Him.
We have the possibility of repenting and accepting His sacrifice until the end of our lifes, some theologians would even suggest that He gives us the chance prior to subjecting us to judgement.
That is why the Church encourages us to pray and keep on praying for the conversion of the people since we will only know when we go meet Him wether someone was converted and “saved” because of our prayers.
The authorized Mass translation (Ordinary Form) at that time was “for all.” It has since been corrected to “for many.”
So – the Pope was not wrong, and your priest today is not wrong.
It’s not wrong if the ENTIRE formula is examined.
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
The new formula still has a problem with the demonstrative but is more reflective of the Latin.
As others have indicated, the English translation of the Mass was recently changed. The changes went into effect in November of 2011. Prior to that time, the words were “for all”. After that date (and at present), the words are “for many.”
As YoungTradCath said, the Latin version has always been the same (“pro multis”). It is only the English translation of the phrase that was changed with the new translation.
So both were correct.