About “pro multis”

[AJV]

What prevents the Roman Canon being removed and not replaced by something else appropriate (i.e. not jumping jacks)? Aside from the fact that it is bound up in the history of the Roman Rite+has 1500 years, etc. that would make such a removal neither wise or laudable.

 

[LilyM]

I wonder how Saint Paul was able to “resist Peter to the face”, as we learn in the Epistle to the Galatians.

Thank God Paul didn’t have access to EWTN or any number of sources of information about how we must treat the pope’s actions.

But I’m also waiting for the day when people who celebrate to the stars all the glorious deeds of John Paul “the Great” explain precisely how to reconcile some of his statements (which often have myriad footnotes to Vatican II) with, say…the Council of Florence and Eugene IV.

We don’t hear much about him on these boards…

St Paul was an Apostle and thus a predecessor of our bishops, Alex. THEY can resist Peter and his successor our Pope to his face, and most surely have in the past, or dispute with their fellow Bishops in, for example, your much-loved USCCB.

Read some lives of the Saints - very few of them openly or covertly resisted even the humbler priests and religious who were their spiritual directors or heads of the orders or religious houses to which they belonged. Usually such obedience took a great toll on them in many ways.

St Francis of Assisi took obedience to the Pope so seriously that when the Pope made a throwaway comment to him to go and live in a pigsty Francis took him at his word! It is deeds such as this that earned him sainthood.

Of course Paul took a different path, but unless you’re a Bishop or Cardinal it’s unlikely to be the appropriate one.

 

[MikeDunphy]

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR46.HTM

Despite the errors and evasions of the web page referenced above, if one reads the whole thing carefully, one will see:
(1) At the Last Supper, our Lord said that He was shedding His blood “for many”, not “for all”.
(2) The new Mass in its normative Latin form records that our Lord said He was shedding His Blood “for many”, not “for all”.
(3) The translators, nevertheless, claim that our Lord said He was shedding His blood “for all”, not “for many”.

The rest of the commentary on the page is erroneous, irrelevant, or absurd. Notice the claim that the Qumram community adopted the word “many” as a label (“almost a name”) for their own small group. How is this an argument in favor of “many” meaning everyone in the world? If anything, using the word “many” to signify a very small group of people is an argument against using that same word to signify every single human being. A little group of people is not all people. Especially this little group. Google “Qumram” and read the first match. “The Qumram community has left a scroll which expresses the bitterest hatred of all that is not Jewish…” - I don’t think they were identifying with the world at large.

The good news that Christ offers salvation to the whole world is worth repeating many times, but it doesn’t address the question of what Christ actually said when bread and wine were first consecrated. Why couldn’t He offer His sacrifice especially for those blessed souls who do enter into the new covenant? At the Last Supper our Lord said “I do not pray for the world, but for the ones you have given me”.

The 1970 claim that the same “word” in Aramaic means both pro multis and pro omnibus is simply wrong, and the first 2004 article admits it – in soft, fuzzy terms that may leave some with the impression that this is all a matter of nuance.

The second 2004 article admits that the “vast majority” of the “ancient Eucharistic Prayer texts” use “for many”. It points out that a few omit these words, but neglects to mention that none of them substitute in “for all”.

I do have a bit more I could write, but I’ll stop here with a note of agreement on one point. Fr. McNamara wrote:

In no way is the doctrine of the ‘Roman Catechism’ to be held outdated.

The Roman Catechism teaches that Jesus deliberately did say “for many” and deliberately did not say “for all”. If this doctrine is in no way to be held outdated, why is there any argument? Just fix the translation. I truly thank God that the Holy Father is going to make sure it does get fixed.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

The thread has been edited of all off topic posts-- those who wish to discuss other topics are welcome to join a thread already in progress or initiate one in the appropriate forum.

This thread however concerns Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s article on the “pro multis” topic.

 

[Pug]

The pro multis mistranslation was not a small thing. In addition to not being the words our Lord used, if you read what the Catechism of Trent said those words refer to (those who will actually be saved), mistranslating them as “for all” teaches universal salvation, since, according to the meaning of those words as interpreted by the Catechism of Trent, it means that all, not just many, will be saved. John Paul II may have believed in the error of universal salvation but it is false (and yes, John Paul II not only questioned whether anyone was in hell, but also taught universal salvation by name).

You appear to me to mean that the catechism of Trent is talking only about those who will eventually end up in heaven with the pro multis:
the cat of trent:

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 when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of 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.

Thus perhaps you mean that only the Catholic who will eventually be saved is receiving the fruits of the mass, and not the Catholic who is in a state of grace now, but won’t persevere? That second person only has the value, but not the fruit? (reference to the paragraph of the cat of trent right before the one I quoted).

Could you clarify?

 

[atsheeran]

I personally will be pleased if the translation is restored to “for many.” This is not because I think “for all” is theologically incorrect (Christ surely did die for all and His death was sufficient for the salvation of the whole world - Rom 8:32; 2 Cor 5:14; 1 Tim 2:6) but because of the simple fact that “for all” is a mistranslation of the normative Latin text.

If anyone is interested in the Pope’s perspective on this issue, I recommend “God’s Yes and His Love Are Maintained Even in Death (The Origin of the Eucharist in the Paschal Mystery)” which is published in God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life.

Cardinal Ratzinger here addressed the question of the German translation which, like the English, translated “pro multis” to the German words meaning “for all” rather than “for many.”

Both formulations, “for all” and “for many,” are found in Scripture and tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation “for all” here and, thus to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation remains in any case indispensible. There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.

(emphasis added)

 

[USMC]

You appear to me to mean that the catechism of Trent is talking only about those who will eventually end up in heaven with the pro multis:

Thus perhaps you mean that only the Catholic who will eventually be saved is receiving the fruits of the mass, and not the Catholic who is in a state of grace now, but won’t persevere? That second person only has the value, but not the fruit? (reference to the paragraph of the cat of trent right before the one I quoted).

Could you clarify?

I meant that the words “pro multis” (for many) refer to those who will actually be saved - the elect, or predestined. It is probably correct to say that all of mankind benefits from the Mass in one way or another while they live, but the words in question refer specifically to the elect, who are the “fruit” of the passion.

Catechism of Trent "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 when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of 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 [the predestined], because they are thine.

So, while it is true that all certainly benefit in some way from the Mass, the words “for many” refer specifically to those who will actually be saved. So, if you and I are both Catholics in the state of grace today; but if one of us will end in hell, then the words “for many” do not refer to the one who will be lost, even though in this life we may have benefited from the sacrifice of Our Lord in some way.

 

[introibo]

“What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many,” are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole…There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone, and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.”

Ratzinger, Joseph A. God Is Near Us. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.

 

[steve_green_2]

Next is doing something about "let us proclaim the mystery of faith "

 

[MikeDunphy]

Both “for all” and “for many” express aspects of our Lord’s sacrifice, but before the consecration of the Precious Blood, the priest says:

Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Where in Scripture or Tradition is it recorded that our our Lord said at the Last Supper that He sheds His blood “for all”? Nowhere. Both attest that He said “for many”. The translators confused translation with interpretation.

“What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many,” are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole…There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone, and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.”

Ratzinger, Joseph A. God Is Near Us. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.

 

[mdgspencer]

I would find it easier to consider your remarks if you would tell me where the New Testament says, specifically, that Christ died for all. Perhaps you are right, though I do wonder if Christ died for those he knew would be condemned, being God.

“What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many,” are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole…There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone, and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.”

Ratzinger, Joseph A. God Is Near Us. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.

 

[Asperges_Me]

Next is doing something about "let us proclaim the mystery of faith "

And thirdly, do away with “For the kingdom, the power…”

Where did that come from anyway? Oh! the Protestants, I forgot,

 

[Brendan]

Next is doing something about "let us proclaim the mystery of faith "

I have nothing against proclaiming the Mystery of our Faith. The problem is, we don’t do it.

We don’t mention the Mysterium Fidei at all, but rather digress into a Memorial Acclimation.

I bet less than 1 person out of 100 sitting in the pews could even articulate what the Mystery of Faith actually is. They would probably think it was something like “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again”

 

[steve_green_2]

steve green 2;1614333:

Next is doing something about "let us proclaim the mystery of faith "

And thirdly, do away with “For the kingdom, the power…”

Where did that come from anyway? Oh! the Protestants, I forgot,

fourth: quiet meditation between first and second reading instead of the psalm thing a ma gig.

 

[LilyM]

Asperges Me;1616774:

fourth: quiet meditation between first and second reading instead of the psalm thing a ma gig.

Who’s calling the Psalms of David …

as recited probably every day since they were written either in the Temple of Jerusalem or by our Catholic clergy …

some of the most beautiful and inspirational poetry ever written and a crucial part of our Judeo-Christian heritage …

'THING-A-MA-GIG’s?

 

[steve_green_2]

Lily, nothing against the psalms, it is basically how it’s done. Painful to say the least.

 

[USMC]

I have nothing against proclaiming the Mystery of our Faith. The problem is, we don’t do it.

We don’t mention the Mysterium Fidei at all, but rather digress into a Memorial Acclimation.

I bet less than 1 person out of 100 sitting in the pews could even articulate what the Mystery of Faith actually is. They would probably think it was something like “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again”

There was a thread a few months ago where this happened. I had to quote from an encyclical of Paul VI to prove to someone what mysterium fide really meant.

 

[Pug]

…who are the “fruit” of the passion…

So, while it is true that all certainly benefit in some way from the Mass, the words “for many” refer specifically to those who will actually be saved

Thanks for the clarification. I’m still thinking about it. I have realized that the concern is fruit of the “passion” and not fruit of the “mass”. I had assumed the latter, but perhaps something technical is meant by the former. My understanding of fruit of the “mass” is that there are a few layers of it, the general one being for all the faithful (suffering and militant), which includes someone who might not make it to heaven.

It is more clear why one would say that doing the “for all” is teaching universal salvation, then, if that whole thing is only about the predestined for glory people. Is this why you think JP2 believed in universal salvation, or is there another reason?

Also, is there a more authoritative document than the Cat of Trent discussing that “for you and for many” is only about the predestined to glory people (elect)? Trent itself would be great, but I didn’t see it when I glanced in the canons for chapter 13 or 22.

 

[introibo]

What I wrote was a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book… hence the citation at the bottom of the post. They were not my words, but the man who became our Holy Father’s, reproduced verbatim from one of his books.

 

[whosebob]

I would find it easier to consider your remarks if you would tell me where the New Testament says, specifically, that Christ died for all. Perhaps you are right, though I do wonder if Christ died for those he knew would be condemned, being God.

JMJ + OBT​

I found it:

My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2 [RSV])

[emphasis mine]

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA