About “pro multis”

[Karl_Keating]

Asperges Me:

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

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

No, it comes from the ancient Catholic Mass. Centuries later it was (erroneously) added to the Protestant version of the Bible.

 

[USMC]

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.

Keep in mind that it is certainly possible that the word “fruit” can have more than one theological meaning; but the Catechism tells us what it means when using the word “fruit”: it is referring specifically to the elect, not just a good that has come from the Passion.

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?

I hope he didn’t believe in it, but it is pretty clear that he was at least tempted to, and unfortunately, he made some statements that were a result of these temptation.

In several places he said that we don’t know if humans go to hell. He said that hell was a reality, and that the demons are there, but that we don’t know whether humans will go there.

John Paul II: “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

Someone wrote in and ask James Drummy, of the Wanderer, why so many people are now saying everyone will be saved. The person then quoted passage after passage from the Bible showing that many will go to hell. James Drummy responded to the quotes from the Bible by saying “let’s see what John Paul II says”. He then defended universal salvation by quoting John Paul II. (I did not read this myself, but heard in on a tape of a well known apologist.)

The following is one more quotes from John Paul II

John Paul II: “Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.” (Message Of John Paul II To The Abbess General Of The Order Of The Most Holy Saviour Of St Bridget)

There are more quotes, but that is the most clear.

I sometime hold out of hope that possibly John Paul II was purposefully misquoted or that his words were mistranslated . Whether or not they were, I can’t say for certain; but the fact is, there are many official quotes, provided by the Vatican, that have John Paul II teaching, or at least implying, universal salvation.

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.

I don’t know of any other magisterial document, but I do know that both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus taught the same.

 

[mdgspencer]

The questions raised by the pope’s statements are not small ones. However, the Church has never defined anything about how many end in hell nor has it ever declared that people are there, so if he did say such things(I would want to read the whole document from which these quotes come to feel sure about this), it would not be seriously out of line with the Catholic faith. Personally however there is too much in Scripture for me not to think there are those who are eternally condemned (and also I think of the vision of hell at Fatima). Jesus for one thing provided the story of a rich man in hell who asked Moses that he be able to warn his brothers about this place. (Whether Jesus was speaking about an actual person and incident, I don’t know, but it is possible.)

 

[Pug]

I don’t know of any other magisterial document, but I do know that both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus taught the same.

Thanks for the quotes. FYI, while persuing them, I came across an nice article in First Things by Avery Cardinal Dulles that is related to the topic of a shift in the teaching on hell. It has nothing to do with pro multis. In case if any lurker would enjoy it, it is here. The second half of the article is the relevant portion, even mentioning one of your quotes.

The first quote you give is the most troubling to me. The second, to me, anyway, *could *be any sort strange comment relating to the mystical experience of St. Bridget. He’d have to have said more.

I’m going to try to scope out what Aquinas said on the topic of pro multis.

 

[USMC]

Thanks for the quotes…I’m going to try to scope out what Aquinas said on the topic of pro multis.

I just ran accross the quote from St.Alphonsus.

**St. Alphonsus De Liguori: **
“The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault… This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.” (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44).

Please post the quote from St. Thomas if you find it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Msgr. John F. McCarthy discusses St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of ‘pro multis’ in the following article:

"The Sacramental Validity of ‘For You and For All’"
*Living Tradtion, *No. 89, September 2000
by Msgr. John F. McCarthy

USMC:

…according to the Council of Florence (not USMC) the New Mass is invalid

Hmmmm…according to St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, “pro multis” can be omitted without affected the validity of the consecration. Omitting pro multis would be illicit, but not invalidating.

St. Alphonsus says:

"What is the form of the consecration of the Eucharist? … Although the truer and more common opinion is that of St. Bonaventure, Suarez, Bellarmine, and others that the essential (words) are only these: This is the chalice of my Blood (or) This is my Blood (or words equivalent to these); nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely. … The consecration is valid but illicit: 1) if the one consecrating says: This food, this drink, this chalice, or * this thing,* or what is contained under these appearances, is my Body or my Blood; 2) if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my Blood (Lk 22); 3)* This is my Body, which I took from the Virgin - This is my Blood of infinite value*; 4)* This is my Body - This is my Blood* [changing *Corpus meum

to meum Corpus or changing calix Sanguinis Mei to meus Sanguis] or This is my Blood [with an ungrammatical demonstrative: Hoc est sanguis meus].* The reason why these are valid is that the same sense remains and there is no substantial change [of meaning].**" **[Alphonsus Liguori, *Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, nos. 220-221.]
[source]](LT89 - The Sacramental Validity of "For You and For All")

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy, not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; not only in priests who consecrate this sacrament and in those who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And, therefore, He says expressly for you, the Jews, and for many, namely, the Gentiles; or for you who eat of it, and for many, for whom it is offered." S. Th., III, q. 78, art. 3 ad 8.]

St. Thomas described that it could indeed mean that Christ’s blood was shed for all. While admittedly this is an incorrect translation of* ‘pro multis*,’ it is a theologically correct intepretation*, *depending upon if one has in mind sufficiency, not efficacy.

“In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others.” In 4 Sent., dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, obj. C:7.]

** St. Thomas** replies to an objection:

"To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy; and, lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others.[ibid.]

Thus, the effect or “fruit” of the shedding of Christ’s blood is given to all those who the effect of the sacrament reaches, either by partaking of the Eucharist or through prayers offered on the behalf of others.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’d rather have someone start answering questions that have long been asked and never answered:

) How can a mistranslation of a sacramental formula be introduced and tolerated for over 30 years?

Just how far does obedience go?

As you all have said, this is extremely critical as it becomes the basis for those who follow the error of sedevacantism. Namely, if, according to Trent and Florence, changing these words to a different meaning (especially to serve the sensitivities of man) invalidates the sacrament, and the Pope is a party to this, how can he, in fact, be a true Pope?

Not to lauch into a discussion on sedevacantism, but suffice to say, there is plenty of precedent in the church for Popes who have been in error and it, according to church fathers and councils, never results in the loss of Keys of Peter except by formal heresy and due process of the Church. Whomever walks out of the conclave, after the white smoke, is the Pope. He is our Sovereign Pontiff but we OWE it to the church, to protest to the Pontiff, when a practice or teaching conflicts with previously defined infallible doctrine. And we OWE it to the church to resist such novelties until such time as the Holy Ghost moves the Pontiff to correct same.

Our Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not revail against the church. But we also know that scripture fortells that Church will be reduced to a remnant. As long as there is the smallest portion of adherents to the Magesterium and the dogmatic formulas of our Sacraments as infallibly defined in doctrinal councils and Papal pronouncement, the Gates of Hell shall not have prevailed.

Thank God that the Holy Ghost seems to be breaking through to Pope Benedict and he is acting accordingly. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he often took issue with these condescending translations.

Peace to men of goodwill.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’d rather have someone start answering questions that have long been asked and never answered:

) How can a mistranslation of a sacramental formula be introduced and tolerated for over 30 years?

Just how far does obedience go?

Whether the translation was correct or incorrect, it doesn’t change the correct theological interpretation that Christ’s blood “was poured out for all as regard sufficiency, but for the elect only as regard efficacy” (St. Thomas), notwithstanding the incorrect conclusions of those who for polemical reasons or from ignorance misunderstand this teaching.

In response to questions regarding the accuracy of translations, the Catholic Church has already responded:

“The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).

 

[AlexV]

Catholics deserve better than vernacular translations that need commentary to explain them.

There are numerous mistranslations throughout the English edition of the Missale Romanum 1970.

Some of them are heretical.

For example…in the Sequence of Easter Day, the Latin reads:

Christus innocens Patri.

That means Christ, who was innocent in the eyes of the Father.

The heretical official English translation reads “Christ who only was sinless.”

Why was “only” inserted? It’s not in the Latin. It implicitly denies the sinlessness of Mary at the moment of her Conception and John the Baptist in the womb of Elizabeth.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m all for the more accurate transaltion, but the fact is it doesn’t affect the validity. St. Pius X would even say so himself. In his catechism from around 1910, it says:

5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”

 

[bear06]

But we also know that scripture fortells that Church will be reduced to a remnant.

I find that problems arise when individuals decide they are the remnant (this is not aimed at anyone here). If you look throughout the history of the Church, many groups have thought they were such a remnant only to have history show they were just schismatics. The remnant of the Church will always be with the Holy Father, not against him.

 

[bear06]

Catholics deserve better than vernacular translations that need commentary to explain them.

I’ve said it before. I’ve NEVER heard a liberal say that all men were saved based on the “for all” translation in the canon. I’ve heard a myriad of reasons why liberals think all men are saved but that ain’t one of them. So, who needs the commentary. You know all men aren’t saved, right? The only people who bring this up is the occaisional traditionalist (note I didn’t in anyway say all traditionalists). I even doubt you beloved Bugnini has said this.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I’ve said it before. I’ve NEVER heard a liberal say that all men were saved based on the “for all” translation in the canon. I’ve heard a myriad of reasons why liberals think all men are saved but that ain’t one of them. So, who needs the commentary. You know all men aren’t saved, right? The only people who bring this up is the occaisional traditionalist (note I didn’t in anyway say all traditionalists). I even doubt you beloved Bugnini has said this.

How about this blogger?

The certainty is that if this is what the Church teaches, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I am not among “many.” In my entire life I have never been on the winning team, and the Calvinists have already devised the tests for those who will make it and those who won’t–I am in the latter category.

If this change comes about, and it sounds certain that it will, I will be reminded at every Mass of my exclusion from those for whom Jesus came. I will accept this as the teaching of the Church because I know the Church is the guardian of the truth…

Apparently, this person has not previously heard, or has not believed, that there will be a Judgment, when some will be saved and others damned.

For the above-quoted blogger, fixing the words of consecration will cause him to start worrying about damnation. Why would that be?

 

[bear06]

Mike, take a sarcasm pill an re-read. BTW, it seems that you also didn’t notice and failed to copy the last part in which this blogger friend says:

Many cheered the translation precision of “for many” for the phrase “pro multis” which in turn is a translation from the Greek for “the multitude,” which, without any stretch of the imagination means, “all.”

What is even more odd is that this translation is applauded without reference to its following restrictive clause–“that sins may be forgiven.” This phrase restricts the meaning of the “for you and for all,” it gives the purpose of this sacrifice–“That sins may be forgiven.”…Now, perhaps if Jesus has said, “so that all might be saved,” we’d have a good argument. But what He said is “so that all might be forgiven.” The might be is not contingent upon the efficacy of the sacrifice but upon the resistance of the individual person

This guy doesn’t believe that all are saved as it stands now and doesn’t see the excitement over the new rumored translation.

Also, if you notice he links to Amy Welborn, Curt Jester and many more solidly Catholic sites. He’s hardly a liberal who thinks all saved. You’ll have to keep searching.

 

[tsorama]

Ha, well, you haven’t arrived in blogdom if you haven’t been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I’m not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don’t see how that’s controversial, and it’s certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

For a nuanced look at “pro multis”, see this.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Mike, take a sarcasm pill an re-read. BTW, it seems that you also didn’t notice and failed to copy the last part in which this blogger friend says:

This guy doesn’t believe that all are saved as it stands now and doesn’t see the excitement over the new rumored translation.

Also, if you notice he links to Amy Welborn, Curt Jester and many more solidly Catholic sites. He’s hardly a liberal who thinks all saved. You’ll have to keep searching.

Sounds like the ideal solution would be to just say it in Latin as part of the new reform. We already have the Kyrie in Greek. Then “pro Multis” can mean whatever fits your personal theology.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Sounds like the ideal solution would be to just say it in Latin as part of the new reform. We already have the Kyrie in Greek. Then “pro Multis” can mean whatever fits your personal theology.

I am not sure I understand the issue here. Jesus did die for all of humanity, not just some it of it. If he only died for some, then do we need another Savior?

 

[bear06]

Sounds like the ideal solution would be to just say it in Latin as part of the new reform. We already have the Kyrie in Greek. Then “pro Multis” can mean whatever fits your personal theology.

Sigh! I’m sticking with my argument that I’ve never heard someone say “all are saved” because of the “for all” translation.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Sigh! I’m sticking with my argument that I’ve never heard someone say “all are saved” because of the “for all” translation.

bear,

I think for those who care (I personally do not believe it invalidates the sacrament), it’s a question of intent, perhaps on the part of ICEL.

It doesn’t take a Latin scholar to properly translate “pro Multis” into English. So why the deliberate mistranslation?