New Translation Monday: The Roman Canon: Part VI - (The Words of Institution, Secunda Pars)

As a reminder, past editions of the New Translation Catechesis can be accessed via the top menu bar.

We continue our catechesis on the first Eucharistic Prayer, known as the Roman Canon.  Last week we covered the words of consecration over the host.  This week we discuss the consecration of the precious blood.  As usual, let’s examine the text as we have it now:

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: 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. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

The new translation reads:

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: 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. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

I have placed the differences in bold.  As you can see, there are quite a few.

Let’s begin with the translation of the word cálicem (later it appears in the form calix).  Properly translated, the word means “chalice.”  True, it could be rendered “cup,” but “chalice” is more appropriate for two reasons.  First, it is closer phonetically to the Latin word.  Second, the cup that is offered is no ordinary cup.  Even a standard English dictionary recognizes the specifically religious connotation that the word “chalice” carries.

A similar principle guides the translation of the word ætérni.  “Everlasting” or “eternal” could be correct, but all things being equal, the word “eternal” is phonetically closer to the Latin.  However, there is another reason why “eternal” is to be preferred.  The eternity of God exists outside of time, and while it is true that the new covenant of Christ’s blood exists for all time, time is only the beginning.  The covenant lasts not only for all ages, but even beyond all ages into the timeless reality that is God.  The truly unique thing about the Incarnation and subsequent death and resurrection is that the infinite became small.  In doing so, after returning to the Father, Jesus brought with him his humanity, and indeed all of humanity.  From that point forward, the eternity of God contains the covenant with mankind.  “Everlasting” seems more limiting than “eternal” when we reflect on the nature of a timeless reality.

With that, let’s return the to beginning of the words over the chalice to hit a few brief points.  First of all, we see the restoration of the phrase “In a similar way,” which comes from the Latin simili modo.  It was left off in the current translation, presumedly in an attempt to simplify the number of clauses.  However, retaining the phrase helps us to understand that the two consecrations form a single reality.  While each element is consecrated separately, both are necessary.

Second, we have the elimination of the words “and praise,” which occurs nowhere in the Latin.  This is curious, actually, because typically the current translation leaves things off, but in this case it took the liberty of adding text.

Third, we have the restoration of the word “which” in the words of consecration.  This serves to maintain a single sentence rather than breaking it up into two.  The Latin, as you can guess, has a single sentence, so the new translation seeks to be faithful to the original rhythm.

Fourth, the participle forms of the verbs are restored in the new translation (“giving” and “saying” as opposed to “gave” and “said”).  I went out on a linguistic limb last time in pointing out that using the -ing endings in English gives the text a better sense of disclosing the ongoing reality of Christ’s sacrifice rather than presenting it as a mere historical event from the past.  Whether that is a stretch or not, the Latin uses participles (agens and dicens) and therefore so should the English.

Fifth, the phrase “said the blessing” (from the Latin benedixit) is brought back in the new translation.  We saw this same thing in the words of consecration over the bread, so I will not repeat what I have written there.

Finally, there is the restoration of the phrase “holy and venerable hands” coming from the Latin sanctas ac venerábiles manus.  This is the very same phrase from the first part, and as such it is duplicated here.  Why the new translation has an aversion to adjectives regarding the infinite majesty of God, I cannot say.

This takes us to a few larger considerations.  First, in front of the initial occurrence of “chalice” we find the phrase “this precious.”  The Latin phrase is hunc præclárum.  The literal translation for praeclarum (which is actually a combination of prae and clarus) is “very bright” or “very clear.”  The English word “precious” captures something of the nuanced Latin meaning.  The more subtle, but perhaps more important point is the use of the word “this” (hunc).  When the priest speaks the words of institution, he is re-presenting the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the same sacrifice pre-presented by Jesus at the Last Supper.  While the physical vessel being used by the priest is materially distinct to the here and now, the “chalice” itself, seen as the pouring out of the blood of Christ, is the same as that used by Jesus over two thousand years ago: the very same precious blood fills both.  As such, it is critical to hear the phrase “this precious chalice.”  At the very least it serves as a reminder that the Mass is not something symbolic; nor is it the sacrificing of Jesus over and over again.  Rather it is a single reality that begins with the sacrifice on the cross and extends to the heavenly liturgy.  There is only one Mass, and thus there is only one chalice.

We also have the change of “so that sins may be forgiven” to “for the forgiveness of sins.”  The corresponding Latin phrase is in remissiónem peccatórum.  I can’t see any advantage or disadvantage in either case, but the Latin contains nouns, not verbs, so the new translation (“forgiveness of sins”) is more accurate.  Besides, the Nicene Creed contains the very same Latin phrase, and there is is translated as “forgiveness of sins” (in both the current and new translations.)  What is more important is the rendering of the verb effundétur.  A Latin dictionary will indicate “shed” as one possible meaning, but it almost always lists “poured out” as the first meaning.  There are two reasons why “poured out” is more appropriate.  First, it is more poetic and dignified.  Second, while Christ did shed his blood, the image that “poured out” evokes is the blood and water gushing forth from the side of Christ following the crucifixion.  The Fathers of the Church saw in the blood and water the corresponding realities of Eucharist and Baptism.  Indeed, the Church herself comes forth from the side of her bridegroom, Jesus Christ, just as Eve was taken from the side of Adam.  When these words are spoken in the context of the Eucharistic celebration, the use of “poured out” allows us to better connect the sacred action of the liturgy to the pierced of the crucified one.

The last, and arguably the single most important change to the translation of the entire Roman Missal deals with the Latin phrase pro multis.  Literally translated, pro multis means “for many” or “for the many.”  There is a Latin word (omnibus) that translates “all,” but it is deliberately not used in the words of consecration.  Gallons of ink have been spilled over the pro multis controversy, and I cannot hope in what little space we have to reproduce the entirety of its history.  I will be content to make three brief points.  The first is that the same vocabulary is used in the institution narratives found in Sacred Scripture (see Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 for example).  The Church did not invent the phrase pro multis but received it from the Lord.  Second, in 2006 the Vatican sent a letter to the Episcopal Conferences addressing this very issue, and it directed the bishops to use a more literal rendering of this phrase in future translations to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings that could arise from the phrase “for all.”  “For all” was no longer to be used because it was not so much a translation as an explanation that belongs more properly to catechesis than to the words of the liturgy itself.  Third, pro multis more clearly expresses the theological reality of salvation.  It is true that Christ died for all men; this is a dogmatic teaching of the Church reflected in countless magisterial documents and scriptural references (for instance, see John 11:52, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Titus 2:11, and 1 John 2:2).  However, as Cardinal Francis Arinze wrote in the aforementioned letter to the episcopal conferences:

“The expression ‘for many,’ while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some

mechanistic way, without one's own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the ‘many’ to whom the text refers.”

What separates Catholic theology on salvation from many of our protestant brothers and sisters is that grace is not imparted in an irresistible manner, but always rests on our free cooperation.  God will never force anyone to accept salvation, so while Jesus died for all men and women, while he opened the door of salvation to the entire human race, there will be some that refuse to enter.  Only for those that do is the blood of Christ efficacious, and it is these that will counted among “the many.”