Fr. Zuhlsdorf responds. Go to Fr. Z's blog for his response and Bishop Trautman's original speech, including a link to The Tablet article.
I'm rather disappointed, but not surprised, to see a US Bishop publicly criticizing the Holy See on a matter which has been spelled out in writing in Prot. n. 467/05/L by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze. It's very unfortuante that the opportunity to speak publicly was not used for catechesis as the Prefect points out in bullet "d" within that document:
3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (pollvn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
Related posts:
The Great News: It's pro multis!
Vatican speaks: Pro multis = for many
More on Vatican's decision regarding pro multis
