About “pro multis”

[Rykell]

Well, hello, USMC, we’ve been around this spin before, huh? Why not bold the critical part of your document, rather than the part to which all of us agree?

For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race

It is not contended that the fruits will not benefit all, but only the many. But the Bishops are clearly defining that the words of consecration are expressing the universal redemption of Christ’s sacrifice. It is more theologically profound to state this wording, than to limit it only to those who embrace the fruits. The latter can be misleading to the faithful. I have already seen one recent post here where the person was upset.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

All who participate with faith in the Eucharist become aware that it is a “sacrifice,” that is to say, a “consecrated Offering.” For the bread and wine presented at the altar and accompanied by the devotion and the spiritual sacrifices of the participants are finally consecrated, so as to become truly, really and substantially Christ’s own body that is given up and His blood that is shed. Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world. Indeed, He alone, giving Himself as a propitiatory Victim in an act of supreme surrender and immolation, has reconciled humanity with the Father, solely through His sacrifice, “having cancelled the bond which stood against us.”

The CCC also teaches this:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage…

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

You embrace a deficient theology not taught by the Catholic Church. Consider well the implications of spreading this error.

 

[AlexV]

Excuse me, Rykell: mistranslating Latin is not the mission or teaching of the Church. It’s called propagating error and falsehood.

Pro multis means for many.

Today, if you interviewed Catholics worldwide, I suspect few if any would argue the (false) view that only some people are capable of achieving salvation.

But, I fear to ask, how many Catholics think EVERYONE is, indeed, ultimately going to be saved? How many still believe in hell? Here, the number might be disturbing.

Pro multis means for many. Because that’s what the LATIN SAYS. It doesn’t say FOR ALL, no matter how you try to spin it into something it’s not.

Other languages have managed to translate this key phrase accurately.

Why so much trouble in the USA?

 

[Rykell]

Incidentally, were you aware that the Church is not confined and limited solely to one Council’s decrees? She has Christ’s authority to “loose” as well as to “bind”, and it will be ratified in heaven. As She matures in faith and development, these former understandings may be changed and “loosed” for the greater good of the faithful.

I’m well aware what section of the forum I’m entering, which is dominated by traditionalists. Not a problem, except when they distort and propagate error in opposition to the solemn teachings of the Magisterium, and spread it to the innocent, thereby creating grave disunity.

 

[Rykell]

Alex, you have every right to voice your complaint to proper authority, all the way up to the Pope. If it bothers you so deeply, you need to go through proper channels. This is not the place to gripe, nor is it your job to influence other Catholics through your own erroneous beliefs until you have resolved your dispute with Rome and learned the Truth.

I agree that pro multis means for many. Nobody disputes that, Alex. What I disagree with is your lack of understanding that the Church is able to make revisions that bestow greater meaning theologically, particularly in liturgy, the “source and summit” of our faith. She is guardian of these sacred mysteries, and has the guarantee from the Lord that “he who hears you, hears Me.”

 

[AlexV]

State where my “beliefs” are erroneous.

You have made an accusation; defend it.

My posts have made a simple and FACTUAL statement: pro multis means for many, not for all.

My statement on that…my belief…is not erroneous. It is verifiably, factually correct.

As for the Church changing things “to bestow greater meaning,” let’s analyze this, shall we?

1. Apparently the rest of the world isn’t privy to this greater theological meaning. I mean, the Latin, the French, the German, the Polish…they all say “for many”. Only in America and other English-speaking lands are we apparently blessed with “greater theological meaning.” Yeah, right.
2. Apparently only after the vernacular came to America was this “greater theological meaning” imparted to the lucky souls in English-speaking lands. All those poor souls before c. 1974 had no such luck or depth of theology. Again, yeah right.

Pro multis means for many. Some people are indeed disputing the correct translation: the folks at ICEL who mistranslated it, deliberately, in 1974.

 

[USMC]

Well, hello, USMC, we’ve been around this spin before, huh? Why not bold the critical part of your document, rather than the part to which all of us agree?

My earlier quote from the Catechism: For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all;

but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race

It is not contended that the fruits will not benefit all, but only the many. But the Bishops are clearly defining that the words of consecration are expressing the universal redemption of Christ’s sacrifice. It is more theologically profound to state this wording, than to limit it only to those who embrace the fruits. The latter can be misleading to the faithful. I have already seen one recent post here where the person was upset.

You embrace a deficient theology not taught by the Catholic Church. Consider well the implications of spreading this error.

The question comes down to this: When Jesus said “for you and for many”, why did he use the word many, when he died for all? That is the question we are dealing with, and the Church has already answer it:

Catechism of Trent:

"For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains NOT UNTO ALL, BUT TO MANY of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from amoung the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, **And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect **from among the Jews and Gentiles.

So, according to what the Church teaches, the word “many” does not refer to those who our Lord died for, but specificaly “the elect” (those who will be saved). That is why Jesus used the word many, rather than all, because all will not be saved.

QUESTION 1: Will you at least admit that the Catechism of Trent (quote above) says that the words “for many” refer specifically to the elect, and not to those who our Lord died for?

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.”

**QUESTION 2: **

Will you admit that the above quote from the Catechism says that there is a “reason” that “the words for all” were “not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of, and to the elect only did the passion bring the guit of salvation”. Will you admit that is what the Catechism teaches?

QUESTION 3: If you admit that (and how could you not), then will you admit that Bishops who now teach "that the words of consecration are expressing the universal redemption of Christ’s sacrifice" are contradicting what the Church Catechism of Trent teaches?

QUESTION 4: Will you admit that, in order to justify what they “now” teach (which is contrary to what was taught prior), these Bishops were forced to translate “pro multis” as “for all”, which is not only contrary to the way it has always been translated, but it is contrary to the objective meaning of the words.

Don’t you see? These Bishops are not only contradicting the clear teaching of the Catechism of Trent, but they are forced to mistranslate the word to do it.

You are not a stupid person. I am sure you can see this.

One final point: It was recently reported by a well known Priest that Pope Benedict established two separate groups of Bishops to study this point? One group concluded that “for many” should be used, and that “for all” was erroneous. The other group said that “for all” should be used.

The Pope examined the research of both groups and said that those who determined that “for all” should be used did a very bad job on their research, and told them to go back and correct it.

It appears that this error is about to be corrected. Do you really want to be on the wrong side of this issue in a few short months when this matter is corrected? That could very well happen.

 

[Ham1]

Alex V,

Forgive me if this is off topic, but since the debate is really about accurate translations, I believe this may help.

Do you also take issue with the english translation of the Our Father which was certainly around way before the Mass in teh vernacular? Obviously, God the Father would not “lead us into temptation.” Could it be that the latin “inducas” does not properly reflect the meaning of the Our Father? It is interesting that in spanish and french the Our Father when translated into english reads more like “do not let us fall into temptation” which seems to more accurately reflect the meaning of the prayer.

Just a thought.

 

[Ham1]

This also might be helpful…

"At first glance, the official Latin “pro multis” would seem to require “for many.” However,in addition to the fact that the translation “for all” is compatible with Christian doctrine, there is
also a linguistic rationale for it. In examining the fifth chapter of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

For example, we find the following: "For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and
the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many "(Rom. 5:15).

It is necessary, however, to read the first half of this scriptural passage more carefully. St. Paul says that “many died through one man’s trespass.” Now, unless “many” here can actually be translated as “all men,” this phrase from St. Paul would actually constitute a formal denial of the Church’s dogma,
defined by the Council of Trent, that the original sin of Adam and its consequences were in fact transmitted to all men rather than just to “many!”

But an inspired—and therefore inerrant—letter of St. Paul would be the last place wherewe would expect to find denials of defined Catholic dogma. Indeed the Council of Trent used
a passage from Romans 5 in its definition on original sin! (Decree on Original Sin, no. 2)

Thus the phrase “for many” must be susceptible to more than one interpretation. And in Romans 5:12-13, St. Paul, introducing his discussion of the effects of Adam’s sin, actually employs the
phrase “all men” as a synonym for “many,” which, as noted earlier, he uses a few verses later in Romans 5:15. So even the inspired Apostle to the Gentiles himself demonstrates that it is possible to use the two phrases interchangeably."

-The Pope, The Council and The Mass, by Likoudis and Whitehead

 

[Rykell]

Dear USMC,

Your argument is not with me, for I have noted that the proposed changes are already voted upon with at least a 2/3 majority and are now in the hands of the Holy See for final approval and recognitio, if it is granted. Maybe your argument will be with the CDW if it is approved? Or maybe it will be denied. Who knows. Lets pray, and not get anxious over it, but wait and see the outcome. As for now, the wording stands, whether or not it is correct, and that is all you and I should concern ourselves with. The mass is not invalid.

Although I came in late to this thread, I did read a few of the early posts, and I truly take issue with this post of yours:

… 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).

Nonsense. This is heretical doctrine, calumnous to John Paul II, and totally against forum rules to impute this lie to him. This little issue about a latin translation reveals your point of departure from Catholic Truth. Anyone who knows their faith, realizes instantly that this is not what the words imply or teach whatsoever. I can guess which website propagates this, for I have seen horrible slander there.

And if you believe what the Council of Florence taught when it defined the words of consecration - that if anyone changed any of the words, and if the new word did not mean what the original word meant, then **consecration would not take place **- the implications are even more serious. Because, who will claim that many means all? And if all and many don’t mean the same thing, then, according to the Council of Florence (not USMC) the New Mass is invalid, and the prophecy from the book of Daniel has come to pass:

Again, utter heresy! I cannot believe it passed unnoticed through the moderators. At this point, I do not believe our conversations will be fruitful. Repeating, let’s wait and see what the CDW approves or denies, but I suspect it will make little difference to you if it is approved.

 

[Rykell]

Only in America and other English-speaking lands are we apparently blessed with “greater theological meaning.” Yeah, right.

The Bishops of any country are the ones who have the authority to oversee their liturgies. Yes, maybe only in our USA this particular language change is authorized, but it is presently legitimate. I do not know what took place elsewhere, but I do know that any liturgical translation must be approved and given a recognitio by the Holy See. This was approved, and the recognitio given. All of our sacramentaries use this wording until such time as the Bishops see fit to change it, or the Holy See denies it.

Like it or not, it is licit for the time being. What the liturgy will be next year, none of us can say at this moment.

 

[USMC]

Dear USMC,

Although I came in late to this thread, I did read a few of the early posts, and I truly take issue with this post of yours:

USMC:

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).

Nonsense. This is heretical doctrine, calumnous to John Paul II, and totally against forum rules to impute this lie to him.

I said that he John Paul II questioned whether anyone was in hell, and that he taught universal salvation by name:

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)

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)

John Paul II: “In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world **the good news of a complete and universal salvation **which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.” (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis)

**John Paul II: “This universal mission of salvation takes on great importance on the day when the Church commemorates the conversion of St Paul. Among the Apostles, in fact, Paul himself expresses and fulfils the Church’s universal mission in a particular way. On the road to Damascus Christ associates him with the divine plan of universal salvation: ** (Homily During Mass With His Holiness Aram I As Part Of Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity; Saturday, 25 Januray 1997)

Those are just a few quotes to confirm what I said.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So how can the latin phrase for Jesus died for a few, or many, but not all, be linguistically correct in latin, but not theologically correct?

“For many” is both linguistically and theologically correct. Yet, “for all” while not linguistically correct, strictly speaking as a translation, it can also have a specific sense in which it could be interpreted as “for all” and as such be theologically correct.

According to John Paul II,

The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the* whole* man and of* all* men. This salvation is* integral and at the same time universal*, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ’s blood: “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur”. It is a sacrifice offered for "many’', as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24;* Mt* 26:28; cf.* Is* 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord’s blood is “shed for you and for all”, as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ’s flesh is truly given “for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51; cf.* 1 Jn* 2:2). [John Paul II, *Letter to Priests, 13 Mar 2005]

AlexV has legitimately question the prudence of the approved English translation of “pro multis” to be rendered “for all.” Whereas USMC contends that “for all” makes the Sacrament invalid. I don’t believe AlexV has made that claim, but USMC has.

If it is correct it is correct both linguistically and theologically, and if it is incorrect it show go both ways as well.

I disagree. Currently approved vernacular translations render it “for all” and “for many” and they are both theologically correct. Only the latter is linguistically correct, strictly speaking.

 

[palmas85]

Alex, you have every right to voice your complaint to proper authority, all the way up to the Pope. If it bothers you so deeply, you need to go through proper channels. This is not the place to gripe, nor is it your job to influence other Catholics through your own erroneous beliefs until you have resolved your dispute with Rome and learned the Truth.

I agree that pro multis means for many. Nobody disputes that, Alex. What I disagree with is your lack of understanding that the Church is able to make revisions that bestow greater meaning theologically, particularly in liturgy, the “source and summit” of our faith. She is guardian of these sacred mysteries, and has the guarantee from the Lord that “he who hears you, hears Me.”

If that was the case, then why not have that translation applied to all of the worlds languages? If it was indeed the result of deeper theological meaning and understanding then it would surely apply across the board to everyone, correct? But it doesn’t.

The problem is that not every language translates the Pro Multis to mean for all. As far as I know only English does. The other languages maintain the true translation of the phrase. So why is English different? Is there something intrinsically more precise in the English translation than in all the others? Are we in the English speaking world privy to this deeper, more meaningful understanding and the rest of the world not? I somehow doubt it.

Actually I see the English mis-translation of Pro Multis as simply being along the lines of Political Correctness much the same as those who instead of saying For the Praise and Glory of His name will say for the Praise ond Glory of Gods name. We in the English speaking world are much more concerned with these issues than are others worldwide in our endless desire not to offend anyone at any time and to remove all distinctions that may offend in any way shape or form.

And that includes** for all** versus** for many**.

 

[USMC]

AlexV has legitimately question the prudence of the approved English translation of “pro multis” to be rendered “for all.” Whereas USMC contends that “for all” makes the Sacrament invalid. I don’t believe AlexV has made that claim, but USMC has.

Did I say I thought it invalidated the Mass? Or did I just say that according to the Council of Forence it is invalid, since “all” and “many” have different meanings?

 

[Walking_Home]

I said that he John Paul II questioned whether anyone was in hell, and that he taught universal salvation by name:

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)

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)

John Paul II: “In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world **the good news of a complete and universal salvation **which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.” (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis)

John Paul II: “This universal mission of salvation takes on great importance on the day when the Church commemorates the conversion of St Paul. Among the Apostles, in fact, Paul himself expresses and fulfils the Church’s universal mission in a particular way. On the road to Damascus Christ associates him with the divine plan of universal salvation: (Homily During Mass With His Holiness Aram I As Part Of Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity; Saturday, 25 Januray 1997)

Those are just a few quotes to confirm what I said.

---

 

[Rykell]

Surely you know, USMC, that words can be taken out of context and misprinted on heretical websites, as can trick photographybe used to slander the Pope — I’ve seen it. You do not give Vatican links to check it out, so I have reservations, rather doubt, about veracity. Could it be that you obtained it as “hearsay?”

However, your interpretation is what is heretical.

… 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.

To that I reply, piffle!

True: Jesus died for all men, his redemption was universal.

False: This translates as “all will be saved.”

Did I say I thought it invalidated the Mass? Or did I just say that according to the Council of Forence it is invalid, since “all” and “many” have different meanings?

Obvoiusly, you believe it or you would never have printed it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I said that he John Paul II questioned whether anyone was in hell, and that he taught universal salvation by name:

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)

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)

John Paul II: “In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world **the good news of a complete and universal salvation **which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.” (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Gregis)

John Paul II: “This universal mission of salvation takes on great importance on the day when the Church commemorates the conversion of St Paul. Among the Apostles, in fact, Paul himself expresses and fulfils the Church’s universal mission in a particular way. On the road to Damascus Christ associates him with the divine plan of universal salvation: (Homily During Mass With His Holiness Aram I As Part Of Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity; Saturday, 25 Januray 1997)

Those are just a few quotes to confirm what I said.

I understand I owe you a response from your previous questions, but this is a quickie…

Don’t you see that it is more probable that John Paul II is using the word “universal” in a different sense than you imply? It means “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole,” not necessarily omitting nor asserting each and every person will attain everlasting salvation. Where you see “universal” replace it with the word “Catholic” and you may see what he is saying in a different light.

I try to understand those quotes in the context of the pope’s Catechism and the entire body of works by John Paul II. In that context, it seems to me he is speaking of “universal salvation” in the sense that Christ brings salvation to the whole world, to Jews and Gentiles.

The first quote especially seems to show that he leaves open the thesis affirmed by Catholic theologian Fr. Hans Urs Von Balthasar and held by St. Teresa Benedicta the Cross that we may indeed hope for the salvation of all souls. (cf. The Population of Hellby Avery Cardinal Dulles).

 

[USMC]

Surely you know, USMC, that words can be taken out of context and misprinted on heretical websites, as can trick photographybe used to slander the Pope — I’ve seen it. You do not give Vatican links to check it out, so I have reservations, rather doubt, about veracity. Could it be that you obtained it as “hearsay?”

However, your interpretation is what is heretical.

I didn’t give my interpretation. I just provided the quotes.

What your response reveals is how **you **interpreted them.

We could have a very interesting discussion on what he meant, since there are many other quotes to consider. The totality of the quotes do give a strong impression of what he believed. That is actually something I have personally wanted to study, but I will not get into that here. Nor do I have any desire to talk bad about anyone.

I posted the quotes I did to show that what I said in the previous post (which you disagreed with) was accurate.

 

[bear06]

Hoi polloi is very clear Greek. It = THE MANY. Not “the all,” for which Greek has another very clear expression, Hoi pantes.

This is your narrow definition. It also mean the masses, the common people, the multitude.

 

[USMC]

USMC:

Did I say I thought it invalidated the Mass? Or did I just say that according to the Council of Forence it is invalid, since “all” and “many” have different meanings?

Rykel:

Obvoiusly, you believe it or you would never have printed it.

I have chosen to suspend judgment on the matter. According to what the Council of Florence taught, it does seem that the change could invalidate the Mass. It would not surprise me on bit. However, as I said, I have chosen to suspend judgment on the matter since I am not the authority, and it really doesn’t affect me since I only attend the Traditional Mass - and the Traditional Mass still has the Form of consecration that has always been used.