Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

On EWTN last night [10/19/05], I heard Scott Hahn reassure viewers that as long as the priest spoke words similar to the words of consecration, the consecration would be valid. [But if the priest said something absurd like "This is my car", then consecration would be invalid].

The desire of Mr. Hahn to comfort worried Catholics is an admirable thing, but why should he be placed in the position of having to reassure the faithful that an error in the words of consecration is no big deal?

I am not speaking of an inadvertent error by a sleepy or careless Priest. I am speaking of the official translation of the Mass into English. If you open any English-language Bible to Matthew 26:28 or Mark 14:24, you will read that Our Lord said He would shed (or does shed) His blood "for many". This includes the version read in our Latin-rite Catholic churches on Sunday. But later in the Mass, during the consecration, we hear something different. The priest claims that our Lord said He would shed His blood "for all". Why the contradiction?

Last month, I had the rare privilege of speaking with a prince of the Church. He explained that literally, what our Lord said was that He would shed His blood for "the many" (with the implication being that "the many" could mean everyone). I was too nervous and uncertain to question what His Eminence said, but was he correct?

If you look at Romans 5:19 below, you will see the phrase oi polloi ("the many"). Elsewhere on the net you will find the explanation that the Greek word polloi can mean "all", because in Romans 5:19, when Paul says "by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners", he means everyone. Therefore in Matthew and Mark, pollwn might mean everyone, too.

But look again at Romans 5:19. You do not see simply the word polloi in isolation. You see the phrase oi polloi ("the many"). It is the phrase that is used to imply everyone, not merely the word "many" by itself. Now look at Matthew and Mark. Do you see the word or the phrase? You see just the word. Arguments about the meaning of the phrase oi polloi are irrelevent to understanding Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, because the phrase does not occur there!

At the Consecration, the most sacred moment in our Liturgy, the priest quotes Christ. Surely we can get the words right! What is accomplished with a misquotation?

It causes some of us to have doubts about whether the Precious Blood is being validly confected. It is easy to sneer at us as "radicals" or "fundamentalists", but all we are doing is trying to be faithful to our Lord. Is it more faithful to quote our Lord accurately or inaccurately?

Romans 5:19
wsper gar dia thV parakohV tou enoV anqrwpou amartwloi katestaqhsan oi polloi outwV kai dia thV upakohV tou enoV dikaioi katastaqhsontai oi polloi
For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall the many be made righteous.

Matthew 26:28
touto gar estin to aima mou to thV kainhV diaqhkhV to peri pollwn ekcunomenon eiV afesin amartiwn
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
kai eipen autoiV touto estin to aima mou to thV kainhV diaqhkhV to peri pollwn ekcunomenon
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

The original Catechism of the Catholic Church, the catechism of the Council of Trent, had this to say about our Lord's words:

"The additional words for you and for many are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of his Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When, therefore, Our Lord said for you, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added and for many, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of and to the elect only did his Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb 9:28) when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many," and also the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine" (Jn 17:9)."

[As of 3/21/2006, I have still not started assembling this website. However, I have been gathering raw materials to comment on at http://promultis.blogspot.com/]

I am interested in hearing your thoughts as to whether "for many", "for the many", or "for all" is the best translation for "pro multis" and "peri pollwn". You can email me at promultis@deacons.com