The conversion of bishop-theologian Bruno Forte

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350321?eng=y

Vatican Diary / The conversion of bishop-theologian Bruno Forte

He was a determined supporter of "for all" in the words of the consecration. But the pope's letter to the German bishops has changed his mind. Now he too wants "for many" to be said. Behind the scenes of the turnaround

by ***

VATICAN CITY, September 10, 2012 – The dispute over the translation of "pro multis" in the formula of Eucharistic consecration has been expanded, in Italy, with an interesting new contribution.

In the Sunday, August 26 edition of the leading Italian newspaper, "Corriere della Sera" a highly prominent figure took the field in this argument, the archbishop of Chieti and Vasto Bruno Forte, a former member of the international theological commission who was consecrated as a bishop by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

> Quell'Ultima Cena con le sedie vuote

In the article, in the wake of the letter addressed last April 14 by Benedict XVI to the German bishops, Forte took a clear position in favor of the translation "per molti," to replace the "per tutti" that entered into use after the Council in Italy and in many other countries.

"Theologically," Forte writes, "the translation 'per molti' seems to me more respectful of everyone's freedom, and in no way excludes the offering of salvation to all made by Jesus on the cross."

"For this reason," he adds in concluding the article, "I prefer the translation 'per molti,' and I maintain that if explained well it can be of help and encouragement to many."

Forte also criticizes the translation that is found in the French missal, "pour la moltitude," recently praised by two Italian scholars, Francesco Pieri and Silvio Barbaglia.

Forte dismisses the version that they propose, "per una moltitudine,"  as one of those "intermediate solutions" that "while admirable" are "inevitably compromisory."

*

Forte's joining the fray is significant, and in some ways surprising.

It is significant because he is one of the best-known Italian bishops, including at the international level, and enjoys a substantial following among his brother bishops, who in fact appointed him as their representative at the worldwide synod on the new evangelization that will be held in Rome in October. Of the four selections he is the only one without the scarlet, the other three being all cardinals: Angelo Bagnasco, Giuseppe Betori, and Angelo Scola.

It is surprising because Forte has always been considered a theologian of the progressive camp, the camp that most opposes, and not only in Italy, the passage from "for all" to "for many."

At the memorable ecclesial conference in Loreto in 1985, which marked the ascent in the leadership of the Italian Church of then-auxiliary bishop of Reggio Emilia Camillo Ruini, Forte was fighting for the other and the winning side, together with the president of the episcopal conference at the time, Anastasio Ballestrero, and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. And it was he who gave the introductory theological presentation.

This is why he has not rarely ended up in the crosshairs of his more conservative theologian colleagues.

For example, in a 2004 article Fr. Nicola Bux, an adviser – both then and now – to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, singled out Forte as one of the "promulgators" of a "weak and derivative theology" concerning the resurrection of Jesus, reduced "to an 'etiological legend,' or an artifice in support of the worship that the Judeo-Christians were conducting on the site of Jesus' burial."

But Forte's taking the field is even more surprising because it marks in him a change of judgment with respect to the past.

During the general assembly of the CEI in November of 2010, when the Italian bishops reiterated with a landslide vote their support of the preservation of the version "per tutti," Forte was among the few who took part in the discussion on the topic in the assembly. And he spoke out in support of the majority.

On that occasion, the Neapolitan theologian – an uncle of the prosecutor John Henry Woodcock, very well known for his judicial investigations with a significant media component, the latest of them against former IOR president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi – indeed affirmed that "the alternative 'per molti/per tutti' contains a theologically founded nuance," but – he added – this is a nuance "too subtle to be explained to the people," and so expressed the opinion of "maintaining the translation currently in use."

In that assembly, the bishops voted overwhelmingly in favor of of the maintenance of "per tutti" with 171 votes out of 187 voters (apart from one blank ballot, only 11 expressed themselves in favor of "per molti," and 4 for the version "per le moltitudini"). And this in spite of the circular letter with which in October of 2006 the Vatican congregation for divine worship had given the worldwide episcopates the authoritative indication, at the mandate of the newly elected Benedict XVI, of translating with "for many" the "pro multis" of the Latin "editio typica" of the Roman missal.

*

Currently, the text of the new translation of the Italian missal is under inspection by the congregation for divine worship, which must give the necessary "recognitio." And in the light of the pope's letter to the German bishops of last April, it is easy to predict that the dicastery will not compromise over the change from "per tutti" to "per molti."

The match could still remain open as far as other sensitive points of translation are concerned. Like the changes proposed by the bishops, with overwhelming votes in support of departing from the original Latin for the "pax hominibus bonae voluntatis" of the Gloria or for the "ne nos inducas in temptationem" of the Our Father, or, with a contrary criterion, the request not to touch the current Italian version of the "Domine non sum dignus," conspicuously – and arbitrarily – different from the original Latin ("Signore, io non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa" instead of "Signore, io non sono degno che tu entri sotto il mio tetto" of the Latin missal, taken word for word from Matthew 8:7).

In this context is situated Forte's turnaround in favor of "per molti." A turnaround that the more malicious interpret as his hopping onto the bandwagon of the victor, in a battle that for him is already lost, in view of possible future promotions.

Forte was considered to be in the running for the patriarchate of Venice, and for that position had a public "endorsement" from the former center-left mayor of the city, the philosopher Massimo Cacciari.

Now the grand maneuvers have already begun for two Italian sees of cardinalate tradition – Bologna and Palermo – the pastors of which, Carlo Caffarra and Paolo Romeo respectively, will turn 75 in 2013. But this is another story.

___________


The earlier parts of the dispute on www.chiesa, and "Settimo cielo", with the complete text of the letter of Benedict XVI to the German bishops:

> "For many" or "for all"? The right answer is the first (3.5.2012)

> "Pro Multis." The Pope's Translation Is Gaining Support (26.7.2012)

> Nelle traduzioni del messale la ricreazione è finita (6.8.2012)

__________


The cited article by Nicola Bux critical of the theology of Bruno Forte:

> Il sepolcro vuoto: per Bruno Forte è una "leggenda"

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
__________

For more news and commentary, see the blog that Sandro Magister maintains, available only in Italian:

> SETTIMO CIELO

__________

10.9.2012 

_____________________________________________

 E-mail: s.magister@espressoedit.it
Postal address: Sandro Magister, "L'espresso", via C. Colombo 90, 00147 Roma

Site design by Theo Nelki.

At the top of the page, a detail from the mosaics in the basilica of Saint Mary Major, Rome, fifth century, depicting the heavenly Jerusalem.

© 1999-2012  Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso Spa - Partita IVA 00906801006

"Pro multis": Can it mean "for all"?

[Originally posted at http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm and http://latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/promult.htm ]

"Pro multis"

Can it mean "for all"?

by Philip Goddard

The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of "pro multis" in the words of Consecration as "for all" (which has been approved for use throughout the English-speaking world) has probably attracted more controversy than anything else in its English version of the Latin text of the Mass. There is an excellent discussion of the point by Monsignor Gamber, in an addendum to his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", in which he concludes that the ICEL translation is completely unjustifiable. However, this discussion is for the most part confined to the theological considerations, and the linguistic aspect is mentioned only in passing. ICEL itself has published (in the Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal) a defence of its translation from the linguistic point of view, and I am not sure that the reasons that were given in that document have ever been rebutted in print. I am not a theologian, and my intention in this brief article is to consider only the linguistic arguments advanced by ICEL and to explain why I think the Commission is wrong.

ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many" (saggi'in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all". This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.

Nobody noticed?

The argument, however, is even stronger than at first appears since the evangelists almost certainly did not translate the words of Consecration directly themselves but used the translations with which they were familiar from the Eucharistic Liturgy in which they regularly participated. These translations go back beyond the evangelists, to the time when the first Gentiles were converted and the existing Aramaic liturgy was translated into Greek for their benefit, which must have happened at most within twenty years of the Resurrection, certainly within the lifetime of the majority of the Apostles. Is it conceivable that Christ's words were mistranslated at that time, that nobody noticed and that the Church had to wait nineteen centuries for ICEL to put the matter right?

But, says ICEL, the Greek word p o l l o i sometimes means "all". It does not say that it always, or even usually, means "all", which would have been quite unsustainable, since there are numerous instances in the New Testament (to say nothing of the rest of Greek literature) where it cannot possibly mean this. However, so long as it sometimes means all, ICEL believes that it is justified in translating it as "all" in this particular context. We must therefore consider whether ICEL's arguments that it can sometimes mean "all" are sound or not. I believe that they are not, for the following reasons.

Firstly, ICEL quotes two passages from the letters of St. Paul (Romans 5:19, and Timothy 2:5-6) where it says p o l l o i is used in the sense of "all". In the former passage, however, p o l l o i , in contrast to the Gospel passages, has the definite article before it (' o i p o l l o i ), and this completely alters the meaning in Greek from "many people" to "people in general". Romans 5:19 does not therefore support ICEL's argument. The word used in Timothy 2:5-6 is p a n t e V , which undoubtedly means all, and ICEL says that this is a parallel passage to Mark 10:45, in which the corresponding word is p o l l o i . It concludes that p o l l o i in Mark 10:45 must mean "all". What ICEL has evidently failed to notice however is that its argument is circular; it could just as easily be reversed and used to prove that p a n t e V in Timothy 2:5-6 means "many". So of the only two passages in the New Testament which ICEL can quote in support of its translation, one turns out to be irrelevant and the other circular.

ICEL text is a mistranslation.

Secondly, when the Latin Canon was first composed towards the end of the fourth century as part of the shift in the Church's liturgical language from Greek to Latin, the Latin words chosen as corresponding to the Greek were "pro multis", not "pro omnibus". The fourth century liturgists clearly did not understand the words in the Greek Canon as meaning "for all". "Pro multis" remains in the Latin Canon to this day, and even the most extreme among the twentieth century liturgical reformers have never suggested either that "pro multis" can possibly mean "for all" or that the text of the Canon should be altered to "pro omnibus". On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.

Thirdly, in Liddell and Scott's standard Greek Lexicon, the article on p o l l o i extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning "all".

Different and incompatible translations.

Fourthly, the distinguished scholars responsible for the principal modern English translations of the Bible (RSV, Knox, New English, Good News, New International and New Jerusalem) are unanimous in translating the passages in question as "for many" and not as "for all". This, incidentally, has the unfortunate result that on a day when the relevant passage is read at Mass as part of the Gospel (Palm Sunday for instance), we have two different and incompatible translations of the same passage in the same liturgy.

It can only be a matter of speculation why ICEL decided to go for the controversial translation "for all" rather than the safe translation "for many". Its members must have known that it would provoke attitudes ranging from polite disagreement to total outrage. It has been suggested that they may have been influenced by the belief that everyone will be saved, and thereby led to attribute to Christ the words which they would have preferred Him to have said rather than those which He did say. I do not think that this belief has ever been formally condemned as heretical, but it is incompatible with Christ's teaching as recorded in the New Testament, in particular with His account of the Last Judgement in Matt. 25: 41-46. Unhappily, thanks to ICEL, it is now enshrined in the very heart of the English vernacular Mass.

[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's February 2000 Newsletter.]