Why did the translators into the vernacular decide to change “for many” into “for all”? Partly, this was based upon biblical studies that said that, for all practical purposes, the two phrases had equivalence in meaning. Apparently, Aramaic did not have a specific word for “all.”
This was translation and interpretation at the same time. The problem with it was that the Greek preserved the distinction between “for many” and “for all.” The Greek of the New Testament did not express the equivalence that the liturgical translators insisted upon.
The official Latin version was still “pro multis” and the exact rendering “for many” as was its equivalent in the Greek, Syriac, Armenian and Slavic Oriental Rites of the Eucharist. Now the English will be in line with the official version. The other languages that opted for the interpretive “for all” must also change.
But wasn’t Christ’s sacrifice “for all”? That is the objection that some have raised to the correction of the translation. Certainly, some of the people in the pews will wonder about this. There is in fact a traditional interpretation about this.
More in The Spirit of the New Translation
One of the examples is from St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
St. Thomas comments on why the Gospels and the Mass say “for the many” and not “for all.” He makes distinctions, which is what Thomism is all about, after all. “The blood of Christ has been shed for all concerning its sufficient power (quem ad sufficientam), but only for the elect as regards to its efficacy (quo ad efficiam).”
This is very far from the “double predestination” taught by John Calvin, who said that Jesus’ blood was the redemption of only an elect group, with the rest of the people basically created to go to hell.
St. Thomas clearly says that “for many” does not imply that God does not desire salvation for all. It just recognizes that it is possible that some will not be saved. This rubs many moderns the wrong way, even some people who are religious. In the back of their head lurks the idea that-- no matter what-- everyone is going to end up in heaven. Among these optimists (I guess you could call them, using the language loosely) was a professor I heard in Rome just a few months ago.
This is the other extreme from “double predestination” (which, by the way, was only eliminated from the Presbyterian catechism in the early 20th century).
If hell doesn’t exist (something Jesus contradicts rather vividly when he talks about wailing and gnashing teeth for eternity and fires that will never stop burning as he does in Luke 13:28 and Mark 9:48) then what does human freedom mean? The objection to the change to “for many” is probably the best argument for its validity. We should not think that there are only happy endings in the universe. Our human freedom is a wonderful and a terrible thing, because we can lose our souls.
An old catechist who worked in my mission had a good example to explain this. He said that everyone had been given a time card and has been guaranteed a job. However, if you never punch in at work, you should not expect a pay check.
(Column continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Like the poet Horace said, all metaphors limp a bit. This one is not completely exact in that it could be taken to imply that our salvation is not a total gift from God. In other words, getting up in the morning and being there to punch in depends on God’s help. All is grace, but we have the capacity even to reject God’s free gifts
Heaven could be the party you are invited to, but never make. That is quite a somber thought, and one that ought to inspire in us much more care about our salvation. As St. Paul said, “Let he who is standing take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).