About “pro multis”

[USMC]

Surely you know, USMC, that words can be taken out of context and misprinted on heretical websites,

One more point. The quotes are found on the Vatican’s website. I tried to link to the Vatican’s website for each quote, but for some reason it didn’t work.

 

[AlexV]

I have a doctorate in Greek, Bear6. It’s not “my narrow interpretation.” It’s what the words mean. Period. They mean “the many”. The multitude means the many. By no stretch of the imagination does it mean “the all.” Period.

 

[bear06]

I didn’t give my interpretation. I just provided the quotes.
USMC, you did interpret and it’s inconsistent with the interpretation of the Magisterium, the competent authority.

It is beyond any question that words have been removed from the Novus Ordo Mass. The words “mystery of faith” were purposefully excluded from the form of consecration of the new mass. According to the Council of Florence, this invalidates the mass.

 

[bear06]

I have a doctorate in Greek, Bear6. It’s not “my narrow interpretation.” It’s what the words mean. Period. They mean “the many”. The multitude means the many. By no stretch of the imagination does it mean “the all.” Period.

You seem to have left out that it also mean the common people or the masses. At least now you’ve broadened it a little to include the multitude. Do I hear common people or masses anyone?

BTW, it’s important to know that one of the definitions of multitude, even in English, is the masses or the common people.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t even dare to try to obfuscate. All of the words and phrases you offer equal MANY, in various shades of nuance, but NOT ALL.

That’s because the words don’t mean THE ALL. They mean THE MANY, which is the same as THE MULTITUDE. “The masses” would be a quite loose translation I’d take points off for, but even “the masses” does not equal “the all.” The “common people” also does not = “the all.”

The point…much as some of you try to obfuscate it, is IT DOESN’T MEAN ALL.

Hoi in Greek is the definite article THE. Polloi is a masculine plural adjective that means MANY.

So don’t try to obfuscate (as usual). What I posted is philologically correct, factual linguistic information. No matter how you try to spin it.

 

[USMC]

USMC;1657539:

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

Bear06:

USMC, you did interpret and it’s inconsistent with the interpretation of the Magisterium, the competent authority.

My comment about no interpreting was pertaining to the quotes from John Paul II teaching universal salvation.

Bear06:

You seem to pit a council against a Pope.

We don’t interpret. That would be the Holy Father’s jurisdiction. We just agree with him.

If you don’t interpret, how do you know what the Pope means, and what to agree with? And if you claim to know what a current Pope means, why can’t you know what a previous Pope meant?

Do you know, not by what he says (which would require you to interpret), but by what he does? In that case, do you invite snake worshipers to your Church to offer false worship? And do you provide them with a special room to commit the mortal sin of false worhsip. That is what Pope John Paul II did.

 

[bear06]

Don’t even dare to try obfuscate. All of the words and phrases you offer equal MANY, in various shades of nuance, but NOT ALL.

Sorry Alex, but the multitude does mean the common people. Just because you don’t consider this to mean all doesn’t mean that the Church isn’t well within her purview to do so.

That’s because the words don’t mean THE ALL. They mean THE MANY, which is the same as THE MULTITUDE. “The masses” would be a quite loose translation I’d take points off for, but even “the masses” does not equal “the all,”. The “common people” also does not = “the all.”

Are you denying that multitude means the common people and the masses?

The point…much as some of you try to obfuscate it, is IT DOESN’T MEAN ALL.

So don’t try to obfuscate (as usual). What I posted is philologically correct, factual linguistic information. No matter how you try to spin it.

Wow! It’s a “3 obfuscate” post. Methinks you doth protest too much. You blew it when you admitted it meant the multitude which is correct. I’ve grabbed many of my pre-vatican II dictionaries (which, let’s face it, are better than the post-conciliar dictionaries) and some of them even define multitude as the populace. Just because one provides a complete definition doesn’t mean that they are obfuscating. It means we are illuminating!

 

[AlexV]

I didn’t “blow” anything.

Let’s repeat this for those who are being obtuse and obfuscatory.

Objectively, the LATIN ADJECTIVE MULTUS AND THE GREEK ADJECTIVE POLUS (plural multi and polloi) DO NOT = ALL.

The Church doesn’t reinvent languages. The words mean what they mean.

You want many? Fine, doesn’t = all. You want multitude? Fine, doesn’t equal all. You want “common people”? Well, you’re getting mighty loose (what about uncommon people?). But IT STILL DOESN’T = ALL.

This is about philology and lexicography.

The Church can’t redefine what adjectives mean. But of course theologically there’s no reason to redefine them. Unless you want to obfuscate.

And, I reiterate, OTHER COUNTRIES DON’T DO THIS. Why only the ICEL ones?

Latin all = OMNIS and Greek all = PANTES. For those who want to learn something.

 

[USMC]

I’ve grabbed many of my pre-vatican II dictionaries (which, let’s face it, are better than the post-conciliar dictionaries)

Careful. If you keep making comments like that people will start calling you a schismatic.

 

[bear06]

Careful. If you keep making comments like that people will start calling you a schismatic.

Believe me, I’ve lost sleep over this one.

 

[bear06]

Let’s repeat this for those who are being obtuse and obfuscatory.

You can say it as much as you like but this doesn’t make it so.

The Church doesn’t reinvent languages. The words mean what they mean.

Alex, you’ve admitted it means multitude. It is apparent that maybe you don’t understand the definition of multitude. The masses, common people, populace can all have the definition “all”.

This is about philology and lexicography

.
Actually, this is about a matter of Faith.

The Church can’t redefine what adjectives mean.

And they don’t. In fact, they have said that they haven’t.

And, I reiterate, OTHER COUNTRIES DON’T DO THIS. Why only the ICEL ones?

I don’t know but I do know that they have permission to do so which is in the jurisdiction of the pope.

Latin all = OMNIS and Greek all = PANTES. For those who want to learn something.

Sorry,“all” is not limited to pantes. It’s synonymous with the polloi used. BTW, synonymous mean similar. That said, I will say that pantes has a sticter definition. Might be why it wasn’t used since Christ died for all but all will not be saved.

 

[AlexV]

The multitude doesn’t mean all. It’s from the Latin root MULT, which means many, though not all. Translating multitudo in Latin as ALL would be loose, barely if at all acceptable, and would get you marked wrong on a Latin test.

You may be ignorant of Latin and Greek, but I assure you, that’s what the words mean.

If a person wanted to refer to EVERYONE, and they said MULTITUDE, that would be sloppy English.

POLLOI in Greek never, ever has the connotation of everyone without exception. Never. And English wasn’t invented when Greek was.

MULTI in Latin never, ever has the connotation of everyone without exception. Never. And English wasn’t invented when Greek was.

You’re arguing philology with a person holding a doctorate in both languages. You’re out of your element.

You’ve taken the loosest of translations (i.e., barely passable ones) of a Greek and a Latin set of adjectives, and then stretched to the loosest of possible English synonyms of those translations, and based your whole case on it.

Any classical philologist would award you a D or an F for your logic.

ICEL has notorious mistranslations. “Christus innocens Patri” as “Christ who only was sinless” is another humdinger. Go defend that one.

 

[bear06]

The multitude doesn’t mean all. It’s from the Latin root MULT, which means many, though not all. Translating multitudo in Latin as ALL would be loose, barely if at all acceptable, and would get you marked wrong on a Latin test.

You may be ignorant of Latin and Greek, but I assure you, that’s what the words mean.

 

[Rykell]

USMC:

One more point. The quotes are found on the Vatican’s website. I tried to link to the Vatican’s website for each quote, but for some reason it didn’t work.

This is a straw man argument, USMC, for if you had done your own research, you would know how to find these. Whenever I save important data, such as you obviously have done, I include the paragraph, section, page, and link for future reference. Since you could not find it tells me you got it from one of those websites that are smearing the pope and taking his words totally out of context to deceive the faithful. It appears they succeeded with you.

Allow me to present the truth to you from the very first document you listed. I was able to find it by going to one of these slanderous websites - piece of cake.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.
   In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.
   Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely.

And the very paragraph from which you quoted conveniently omitted the first part:

1. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801).** What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God**.

And the following part of section 4 which you quoted completely out of context to John Paul’s meaning. The blue sentence is one that you omitted.

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This makes me immensely angry, but I am not surprised or shocked, for I have seen these venomous attacks many times. You really need to check your sources before printing this slander, unless of course you are agreeing with denigration of the Pope?

 

[USMC]

I have a doctorate in Greek, Bear6.

Bear,

You are arguing language with AlexV who has a doctorate in Greek?

You are going to hurt yourself if you continue to try and make multis mean “all”. It’s just not going to happen.

Multis has an objective meaning, and it is not all.

I know what you can do. You can take a lesson from the modernists and say that it means all to you personally. You can just interpret it subjectively to mean “all” and argue from that point of view. But if you try to argue over the objective meaning, you are not going to get anywhere.

This is what you should do: You should argue with AlexV from the subjective point of view and base your position on how you “feel”. After all, who is AlexV to tell you how you can and can’t feel?

 

[AlexV]

Well isn’t this amusing. I just looked up the Greek word POLUS in the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, which is the largest and most complete Greek-English dictionary in existence, and I read 2 entire pages of entries on POLUS (plural POLLOI), and NOWHERE did the English word “all” occur.

Isn’t that curious? I’m glad my BA, MA, and Ph.D. in Classical Languages weren’t obtained through fraudulent classes that taught me falsehoods.

Two long and dense pages of classical scholarship. And nowhere, not even in some obscure reference, does POLUS/POLLOI ever mean “all.”

I’ve also looked up MULTUS,A,UM in the “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, the largest Latin-English dictionary in existence. Guess what? The word “all” appears nowhere.

So, in fact, I shouldn’t even have given the small sliver of hope to you that your translations were “loose”. They’re not defensible according to the two standard classical language dictionaries for English-speakers.

P.S. Polloi and Pantes are NOT synonyms.

 

[Rykell]

Another out-of-context portion of your second quote:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20021003_ss-salvatore-s-brigida_en.html

Going back in mind and heart to her mystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer’s Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.

The blue is where you began, omitting the first part where the Pope was speaking about her mystical experiences of the Passion, and not giving a treatise on salvation.

Shall I continue? I doubt that it is necessary, for I’m sure it will be more of the same.

 

[USMC]

"USMC:

One more point. The quotes are found on the Vatican’s website. I tried to link to the Vatican’s website for each quote, but for some reason it didn’t work.

This is a straw man argument, USMC, for if you had done your own research, **you would know how to find these. **Whenever I save important data, such as you obviously have done, I include the paragraph, section, page, and link for future reference. **Since you could not find it tells me you got it from one of those **websites that are smearing the pope and taking his words totally out of context to deceive the faithful. It appears they succeeded with you.

You missed my point. **I do have the Vatican website link. ** I thought I provided them in my post but they didn’t show up. When I have tried to use the “hyperlink” recently it has not worked (probably my fault), so I didn’t bother to go back and try to fix it.

But since you asked, here are the links to the Vatican website.

Link 1 (quote is located near the bottom. 64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:C7Kyp6sh_rUJ:www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html+site:www.vatican.va+%22whether+or+which%22&hl=en

Link 2 (about 3/4 of the way down. The sentence begins “in his zeal” vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis_en.html

Link 3: Quote is in the 3rd paragraphvatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20021003_ss-salvatore-s-brigida_en.html

One comment. The links above may not be in the same order as the quotes were.
**
Now, after you read those quoted on the Vatican’s official please respond.**

 

[Rykell]

The first and last link I have already commented on. As for the second, there are so many sections that it would take forever to find it. Surely you know the number? But you needn’t bother to look, I won’t put you through that just to prove a point …

… point being, that these are taken out of context and have no real weight whatsoever to assert that JP did not believe any go to hell, and that all would be saved. As I said, it is calumnous because it is not truth and presents him in a position of teaching heresy.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you simply copied from another site. But now that you have the links saved, and present them in altered fashion, I am more upset than ever, because it betrays your real intent.

 

[USMC]

Another out-of-context portion of your second quote:

John Paul II “Going back in mind and heart to her mystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer’s Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.”

The blue [black] is where you began, omitting the first part where the Pope was speaking about her mystical experiences of the Passion, and not giving a treatise on salvation.

Shall I continue? I doubt that it is necessary, for I’m sure it will be more of the same.

I have no idea how the first part of that quote changes the context, but it doesn’t matter. This discussion began by my saying that John Paul II questioned whether anyone was in hell, and taught universal salvation by name.

You then reacted that this was not true. **I responded by quoting John Paul II saying we don’t know of *“whether… human beings are effectively involved in” *damnation. I then quoted John Paul II teaching universal salvation by name. **

If you want to get into interpreting what he meant that is one thing; but there is no question that he taught universal salvation by name (I provided the quotes), and there is no question that it is possible to interpret his words to mean that all are saved. In fact, that is precisely what some have done.

Those who believe in universal salvation use the words of John Paul II to confirm it. Here is a link to some one who does just that: 72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:2BmundxtBdsJ:www.romancatholicism.org/jpii-quotes.htm+John+Paul+II+universal+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1