From what I understand, there’s a new translation supposed to hit the altars come the first Sunday of Advent this year. Among other changes, it changes the words of consecration from “for all” back to “for many.” So, thoughts on this? Do you think this will bring either the SSPX or Sedevacantists back?
The SSPX is a priestly order and there are issues other than the new English translation that are on the table in their talks with Rome. However, I’m sure there are many English speakers who attend their services and many who don’t who may feel some vindication on their “for you and for many” position. But that’s my opinion.
I can’t speak for SSPX or Sedevacantists, but I can say (as a relatively recent convert) that I am thrilled we are getting a new English translation that is a faithful translation of the what the Latin text actually says.
Of course, I’m just now getting to the point that I can recite the current translation without a cheat sheet ;). At least this time, I’ll be in the same boat as everybody else trying to remember the words!
Any SSPX person or Sedevacanist who claims “for many” as one of their points of difference is being disingenuous. The wording never changed in the actual Missal, it was only mis-translated. The correct translation for “pro multis” remains in most languages other than English yet the SSPX doesn’t like the Missal in those languages either.
For what it’s worth, the change in English is happening at the same time as the new translation but it would be changing to “for many” anyway since this was required by the Vatican several years ago.
The new translation is just so much better than the current one. I can’t wait to use it.
The SSPX and most of the Sedevacantists take issue with the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council or the council itself. The translation of Pro Multis as “for all” or “for many” is unlikely to affect the beliefs of the Sedevacantists as they don’t accept the validity of the Mass texts introduced after the council(1970) anyway. The SSPX are already in talks with the Vatican and if they are reconciled it is highly unlikely that they will use a Missal published after 1962.
I don’t know much about the SSPX but from what I’ve read they have more issues with the Church than just this one line in the new missal. It’s a sad story as in many ways they are more obedient to the Magisterium than many other orders.
The new translation is what triggered a desire to learn the history of the liturgy and eventually how I got here to this site. When something ‘new and improved’ comes along it suggests there was something not as good as it could be with the old. I reacted very emotionally to this at first, did that mean all these years the Masses I attended weren’t as good as they could have been? I had questions, searched the Internet, eventually found Catholic Answers, lurked for awhile and took the plunge a few days ago with mixed results so far.
This new translation is supposed to be closer to the Latin, so I started researching the Latin Mass. Back in 1969 Pope Paul VI launched a new liturgy, so that made me wonder, was it along the same lines as “new and improved”? If so what was wrong with the old? Forty years later, are we better off?
It was actually Pope John Paul II who saw the need for a corrected translation. Pope Benedict XVI has returned to the traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion, Latin Masses are popping up all over the place, so it seems like the trend is a recall of the 1969 ‘new and improved’ liturgy to fix things that went wrong.
Signs I’m seeing suggest the Church is calling us back to a more traditional style of worship and reverence. Society may be changing too. The Pro-Life movement is winning more hearts and minds, extraordinary Catholics like Lila Rose are making outstanding gains in this battle. With the national debt about to choke us perhaps materialism is fading too.
Speaking of Latin there is a phrase Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. It means as we worship, so we believe, so we live. Based on how we’ve been living in these past few decades, perhaps the best remedy is to improve how we worship.
I’ve seen the new translation online, and think it’s brilliant. However, I;ll be honest and say I’m totally ignorant about this “for all” vs. “for many” issue. I know who the SSPX are, but do not know what the debate is surrounding the revised phrase - could someone enlighten me pls?
I believe it has to do with Salvation. “For Many” suggests that not everyone will go to Heaven, whereas “For All” does. Many Protestants believe the only requirement for Salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. The Church teaches you need that and to be free of mortal sin. Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour is not a free ticket to paradise.
As a recent convert myself (2007) I am absolutely thrilled about the new translations. I believe they will help the Church in America get back on track liturgically in cases where abuse has crept in and it is just a flat out better translation.
I spent a few days training in the new missal translation with the Sydney Guild of St Stephen. It is a FAR BETTER translation than what we have been using. The old translation was a “dynamic” or “in the spirit of the words” type translation, where this one is more literal.
The upcoming revised English translation is very similar to the post-Vatican II, pre-Novus Ordo vernacular Mass that I served as an altar boy during the school years 1966-67 and 1967-68. I am very much looking forward to the implementation of the revised translation this Advent! Deo Gratias!
this has nothing to do with either group, It also has nothing to do with use of Latin as the language for celebration of the Mass, and everything to do with revising the English language translation (most other languages have no problem) to a more literal rendering of the Latin original, rather than they dynamic equivalence approach that was used in the first 3 versions.
I doubt the new translation (or anything to do with the Ordinary Form of the Mass) will make one bit of difference to sedevacantists. They don’t think we have a true Pope right now. A good translation doesn’t make a non-pope a pope. They won’t be happy until a “true Pope” is elected.
As for the SSPX, I don’t think they can all be lumped together. But as others have mentioned, I don’t think the English translation is of as much concern to them as the Latin text of the Ordinary Form. I think some would desire traditionally-oriented changes made to the Latin text of the Missal.