Pope Benedict wrote a letter dated April 14, 2012 to the
member of the German Bishops' Conference. In this letter he takes up the matter
of the appropriate way to translation the words pronounced over the chalice in
the Eucharistic Prayer of the Holy Mass. The Bishops' Permanent Council
discussed this letter on April 23, 2012.
Your Excellency!
Venerable, dear Archbishop!
During your visit on 15 March 2012 you let me know that
regarding the translation of the words “pro multis” in the canon of the Mass,
there remains no consensus among the bishops of the German speaking regions.
Apparently there is a danger that in the soon to be expected publication of the
new edition of the “Gotteslob”, some parts of the German speaking regions want
to maintain the translation “for all”, even though the German Bishops’
Conference had agreed to use “for many”, as was desired by the Holy See. I
promised you to express myself in writing about this serious matter to head off
such a division in the heart of our prayer. The letter which I hereby send
through you to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference, I will also have
sent to the other bishops of the German speaking regions.
Let me first speak briefly about the origin of the problem.
In the 1960s, when the Roman Missal was to be translated into German under the
responsibility of the bishops, there was an exegetical consensus that the words
“the many” and “many” in Is. 53, 11 and following was a Hebrew expression
signifying the totality, “all”. According to this view, the word “many” in the
accounts of Matthew and Mark was a Semitism, and must be translated as “all”.
This understanding was also applied to the actual Latin text that was to be
translated, the “pro multis” of which refers back, by way of the Gospel
accounts, to Is. 53, and therefore must by translated as “for all”. This
exegetical consensus has since that time crumbled; it no longer exists. In the
German translation of Sacred Scripture the account of the Last Supper says:
“This is my Blood, the Blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many”
(Mark 14:24, cf. Matt. 26:28). This indicates something very important: The
rendering of “pro multis” with “for all” was not merely a translation, but an
interpretation, which certainly was and remains an interpretation with
arguments in its favor, but which is an interpretation and not just a
translation.
This mingling of translation and interpretation belongs in
hindsight to the principles that immediately after the Council guided the
translation of the liturgical books into the vernacular. One was conscious of
how removed the Bible and the liturgical texts were from the language and
thought of modern man, so that even when translated they would have to remain
to a great extent incomprehensible to those taking part in the liturgy. In this
new attempt the sacred texts would be opened up in translation to the
participants of the liturgy and yet would remain very remote from their world,
indeed, their remoteness would now be even more visible. Thus it seemed not
only justified, but even obligatory to mingle interpretation with translation
and so to shorten the way to the people whose hearts and minds were to be
reached by these words.
To a certain degree the principle of translating original
texts according to their meaning, not necessarily a word-for-word translation,
remains justified. Since I frequently have to pray the liturgical prayers in
various languages, I notice that one can often hardly find any common meaning
between the various translations, and the common text that underlies them is
often only distantly discernible. Into these translations have crept
banalisations that are real losses. Thus over the years it has become ever
clearly to me, also personally, that the principle of non-literal but
structural equivalence as a translation guideline has its limits. Following
such insights, the instruction on translation, Liturgiam authenticam, published by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith on 28 March 2001, once more brought to the fore the
principle of literal equivalence, though of course without dictating a
one-sided verbalism. The important insight that lies at the root of this
instruction consists in the above-mentioned distinction between translation and
interpretation. This is necessary both in regard to the Word of Scripture and
in regard to the liturgical texts. One the one hand, the sacred Word should, as
far as possible, be presented as itself, including its foreignness and the
questions it bears in it; on the other hand, the Church has been given the task
of interpreting – within the limits of our own understanding – so that the
message which the Lord has meant for us may come to us. The most sensitive
translation cannot replace interpretation: it belongs to the structure of
Revelation that the Word of God is read in the interpreting community of the
Church, that faithfulness and making now present are united. The Word must be
there as itself, in its own form, which may be strange to us; interpretation
must be measured by its faithfulness to the Word itself, but at the same time
must make that Word accessible to the modern hearer.
In this context the Holy See has decided that in the new
translation of the Missal the words “pro multis” must be translated as such and
not immediately interpreted. The simple translation “for many” must replace the
interpretative rendering “for all”. In this context I want to point out that in
both Matthew and in Mark there is no article: not “for the many”, but “for
many”. If this decision is, as I hope, quite understandable from the
perspective of the fundamental relationship of translation and interpretation,
I am still aware that it presents an enormous challenge for all who have the
task of interpreting the Word of God in the Church. For regular patrons of the
church this almost inevitably appears as a rupture at the heart of what is
holy. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her
teaching? Can and may she do so? Is this indicative of a reaction destructive
to the heritage of the Council? We all know, through the experience of the last
fifty years, how deeply the changes of liturgical forms and texts affects the
souls of the people; how much must a change in the text on such a central point
affect the people? Since this is so, when in view of the difference between
translation and interpretation a decision was made for the translation “many”,
at the same time it was decided that a thorough catechesis must precede the use
of this translation in the individual language regions, a catechesis in which
the bishops must make clear to their priests, and through them to their
faithful, what the issue is really about. This preceding catechesis is the
basic prerequisite before the new translation comes into force. As far as I
know, such a catechesis has till now not been made in the German speaking
region. The intention of my letter, dear brothers, is to ask you most urgently
to develop such a catechesis, to discuss it with the priests, and at the same
time make it available to the faithful.
In such a catechesis one must first very briefly explain why
after the Council the word “many” was translated in the Missal by “all”: to
unambiguously express the universality of the salvation that comes from Jesus,
as he willed it. This leads of course immediately to the question: If Jesus
died for all, why did he say “for many” at the Last Supper? And why do we stick
to these institutional words of Jesus? To this we must add that Jesus,
according to Matthew and Mark, said “for many”, but according to Luke and St.
Paul he said “for you”. This apparently narrows the circle even more. But this
is exactly the point from which we can arrive at the solution. The disciples
know that the mission of Jesus extends beyond them and their circle, that he
came to gather together the scattered children of God from all the world (cf.
Joh. 11:52). This “for you” makes the mission of Jesus very concrete for those
present. They are not some anonymous elements of a vast totality, but everyone
knows that the Lord died precisely for me, for us. “For you” reaches into the
past and into the future; I have been named very personally; we, who are here
gathered, are known and loved as such by Jesus. In this way, “for you” is not a
narrowing of the mission, but a way of making it concrete, that is valid for
every community that celebrates the Eucharist, that unites itself concretely to
the love of Jesus. the Roman Canon united the two Biblical readings in the
words of consecration, saying accordingly: “for you and for many”. During the
reform of the liturgy, this formulation was then adopted for all the
Eucharistic prayers.
But now once again: Why “for many”? Did the Lord not die for
all? That Jesus Christ, as the Son of God made man, is the man for all men, the
new Adam, belongs to the fundamental certainties of our faith. I would like to
call to mind just three passages in Scripture indicative of this: God delivered
his Son “up for us all,” Paul writes in the Letter to the Romans (Rom. 8:32).
“One man died for all,” he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians about
the death of Jesus (2 Cor. 5:14). Jesus has “offered himself as a ransom for
all”, it is said in the First Letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:6). But even more then
must we ask again: If this is clearly so, why does the Eucharistic Prayer say
“for many”? Well, the Church adopted this formulation from the institution
narrative of the New Testament. She says it thus out of respect for the Word of
Jesus, to remain faithful to him even in his very words. Respect for the Word
of Jesus is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic Prayer. But then
we ask: why did Jesus say it this way himself? The true reason for that is that
Jesus, in this way, showed himself as the servant of God of Isaiah 53,
identified Himself as the form that the word of the prophet was awaiting.
Respect of the Church for Jesus’ Word, Jesus's fidelity to the word of the
“Scripture”, this double faithfulness is the concrete basis for the formulation
“for many”. We join in this chain of reverent fidelity by the literal
translation of the words of Scripture.
As we have seen, that the “for you” in the Lucan-Pauline
tradition does not narrow, but rather makes concrete, so we can now recognize
that the dialectic of “many” – “all” has its own significance. “All” moves on
the ontological level – the being and action of Jesus includes all of mankind,
past, present and future. But in fact, historically in the concrete community
of those who celebrate the Eucharist, he comes only to “many”. In this way we
can see an threefold significance in the relationship of “many” and “all”.
Firstly, it should mean for us, who are allowed to sit at his table, surprise,
joy and gratitude, that he has called me, that I may be with Him and may know
Him. “Thanks be to the Lord, who has called me out of mercy into His Church…”
[From a hymn of the “Gotteslob”] Then, secondly, this is also a responsibility.
How the Lord reaches the others – “all” – in his own way remains ultimately a
mystery. But without a doubt it is a responsibility to be called by him
directly to his table, so that I may hear: for you, for me has he suffered. The
many bear responsibility for all. The community of the many must be the light
on the candlestick, the city on the mountain, leaven for all. This is a calling
that concerns everyone personally. The many, who we are, must be conscious of
their mission to be responsible for the whole. Finally, a third aspect may be
added. In modern society we have the feeling that we are not at all “many”, but
very few – a small swarm that is becoming ever smaller. But no – we are “many”:
“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number,
from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues,” the Revelation of
John says (Rev. 7:9). We are many and we stand for all. In this way both words,
“many” and “all”, belong together and stand in relationship to each other in
responsibility and promise.
Your Excellency, beloved brother bishops! With all this I
wanted to indicate the basic content of the catechesis, with which priests and
laity should be prepared as soon as possible for the new translation. I hope
that all this can serve a more profound celebration together of the Eucharist
and thus enter into the great task that lies before us in the “Year of Faith”.
I hope that the catechesis will soon be presented and thus become part of the
liturgical renewal for which the Council worked from its very first session.
With an Easter blessing, I remain in the Lord,
Yours
Benedictus PP XVI.
