About “pro multis”

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

But surely the old Holy Father is talking about the possibility of salvation for all, not the guarantee or absolute pledge of salvation no matter what. I don’t read him as saying that every soul will be saved in the above quotes, but rather that every soul has, in Christ, the possibility, the potential for salvation because of what Christ did.

 

[USMC]

… 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.

Again, I didn’t interpret the words, I just quoted them to show you that he taught “universal salvation” by name (which he did). In my last post I provided you with a link to a group that teaches universal salvation and has many quotes from John Paul II, which they say agrees with them.

Before quoting John Paul II, they say this:

The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.

They then include many quotes to confirm this error, as well as many quotes from John Paul II. Here is a link to their website:
72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:bfuyiilWMoUJ:www.romancatholicism.org/universal-salvation.htm+John+Paul+II+universal+salvation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

 

[bear06]

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

Absolutely! Is there a new forum rule I don’t know about? It seems ridiculous to run and argument around “he’s smarter than you” when it comes down to the fact that there is a far broader definition of “hoi polloi” than Alex originally stated and some of those definitions do come down to “all”. There has been more than one occasion on these forums when someone claimed expertise got it wrong. Luckily people don’t just take things for granted when someone claims to be an expert.

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

How am I going to hurt myself? Heck, at least I’ll be in some VERY good company. I don’t have a dog in this race. I attend a Mass in Latin. And quite frankly, I don’t care if the translation is changed. That said, it’s ridiculous to say that definition of the masses, the multitude, the populace, etc. is in no way “all”. The best you can say is that one is using a narrow defnition.

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.

Again, you might want to look up the definition of multitude masses, populace, etc.

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?

This is what I think you should do. Look at what the competent authority has said on the interpretation of “pro mulits” in the translation. Alex is not the competent authority.

 

[palmas85]

I still maintain that if, as has been argued herem Pro Multis should mean for all, then it should be so translated that way into every language, not just in the English speaking world. However it is not.

I further maintain that the English translation of for all is merely a bow towards political correctness and ecumenism more than any deeper or more developed religious theory or understanding…

 

[bear06]

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.

And it probably had the multitude, masses, populace, etc. which is what I said. Nice try. Does your lexicon list the synonyms for both of these words? Please list.

 

[AlexV]

I am a competent authority on what Latin and Greek words mean, and I looked up both words in the authoritative, standard, scholarly Greek and Latin dictionaries and read the quite lengthy entries.

So sorry Bear, but this is open and shut. I’m right; you’re wrong.

Polus…much, many, large, great, wide, of great consequence, more than a few, many men, sometimes very much, very many…

Gee…sorry, Bear. As said above, you’re wrong.

Multus…many people, many, many a, the many, many things, to a great extent, much, something of value, importance, see also plus, plurimus, multum…

Gee…sorry, Bear. As said above, you’re wrong.

 

[Ham1]

Alex V or any others,

Any response to posts #121 or 122?

Just curious. Particularly about 121 and if the latin is just a poor translation of the original greek or aramaic or whatever.

Thanks!

 

[Rykell]

USMC:

…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.

Are “some” perhaps “you”? There can be little doubt, for you would never have posted it just as a FYI to dazzle us, but intentionally to besmirch the good name and eminent authority of John Paul.

www.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. **

There can be no doubt from your first ink that he is not teaching all can be saved. Read the last sentence, which you omitted to post in your quote, and while you’re at it, take a look at #3 in the same link:

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created all men, yes?]. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. **Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person **and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

 

[Rykell]

Dear Ham,

Yes, I certainly appreciate your comments, and I meant to respond and tell you so, but kinda got lost in the maze here. Unfortunately, I doubt those who need to read it will take it to heart. The rest of us can take comfort that there are still a “few good men!” Thanks!

 

[Rykell]

Alex,

So what if you’re right? What does it prove, other than you know how to translate latin? This gives you authority over the Bishops to tell them they are wrong? This gives you license to disobey and propagate the fact that you believe this?

I asked that we all remain in prayer that the Lord will guide His Church according to His will for this difficult matter. As it stands, the wording is not in use in our sacramentaries, so why debate it?

 

[AlexV]

Excuse me, Rykell.

If a bishop says a Latin word means something, and it doesn’t, just because they’re a bishop doesn’t mean they’re immune from being wrong, or from an expert stating that they are wrong.

What exactly, specifically, am I disobeying? Some imaginary rule that we must never point out error?

Further, where are Catholics banned from writing the truth?

Unless, of course, bishops are now invested with the authority to reinvent languages, and we are obliged to remain silent and “obey”, whatever that means in this context.

This argument IS all about translating classical languages. Maybe we’re seeing the results of all those years of seminaries dumping mandatory advanced Latin and Greek. Pretty hard to be an expert in languages you either never studied or took a 1-2 yr. elementary/intermediate sequence in.

This isn’t a “difficult” issue, either. Nobody forced ICEL to mistranslate NUMEROUS Latin passages.

 

[Rykell]

Palmas,

I still maintain that if, as has been argued herem Pro Multis should mean for all, then it should be so translated that way into every language, not just in the English speaking world. However it is not.

I suppose the CDW could impose this on other countries, but they respectfully leave the work up to the bishops. Until these bishops learn of this wording in our liturgy and deem it appropriate for submission to the CDW for their own diocese, I doubt it will happen. It is felt that each bishop knows his own flock and culture, and it is left up to them accordingly from the Council documents.

After reading the document regarding translations, it is really complex to consider how diverse these cultures are. We cannot know all the ins and outs that the bishops deal with on a daily basis.

 

[AlexV]

So, Rykell, was it the “conciliar” will that the bishop of a certain diocese named after a citrus fruit, since he “knows his flock and culture,” would be allowed to permit a “Halloween Mass”? Is that part of the diocesan culture we must humbly and silently respect and “obey”?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC,

That your source in post #156 equates John Paul II teachings to be the Origenist theory of apokatastasis shows that they either lack scholastic rigor or integrity. John Paul II nowhere claims, as did Origen, that after the wicked are punished in hell forever and ever, that they will be restored and allowed to enter heaven.

The web source you cite are from Jansenists who also contend Pope St. Pius X and St. Pius V to be among the heretical popes before Vatican II.

It seems from the context of John Paul’s writings, he uses the term “universal salvation” in the orthodox sense. For instance, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the reasons it was fitting that Jesus should suffer on the cross is “*because it is befitting the universal salvation *universali salvationi] of the entire world.” (Summa Theologica, III, 46, 4).

 

[Rykell]

Yes, I hear your bitterness, Alex, and it is a heartache for the Church. Nevertheless, we have a valid mass in its essence, whether traditional or N.O., and Jesus gives Himself to us in Eucharist. By submission, I mean accepting in faith that in spite of all the weeds that try to choke out the good seed, the seed will grow along side of them until the day of harvest, so to speak. Jesus tells us to leave them alone; they will be gathered up into the fire.

Personally, when I am involved in these controversies, my interior recollection suffers a deep loss, which is something I need to attend to, for often these matters are not my business — thank God! I pray for the bishops, for I know how offended God is by some of their actions. As bad as it seems, the mass is still the mass, for only the disciplines change, not the essence.

It amazes me more and more whenever I see impossible situations turn around, and I know it is only because the Lord has intervened. We will see how all this plays out. I trust too, that He brings good out of evil, and even uses our enemies to accomplish His will. Faith, Alex, keep the vision!

 

[Rykell]

Jeesh, Dave,

I just went to the link and saw that it was a sedavantism site, posting 101 heresies of John Paul II. What on earth? Did you see that? Apparently this is the diet USMC feeds on. :bigyikes:
romancatholicism.org/index.htm

As I noted earlier, this site conveniently takes the words of his documents totally out of context to slander him. It is intentional and deliberate.

 

[USMC]

USMC,

That your source in post #156 equates John Paul II teachings to be the Origenist theory of apokatastasis shows that they either lack scholastic rigor or integrity. John Paul II nowhere claims, as did Origen, that after the wicked are punished in hell forever and ever, that they will be restored and allowed to enter heaven.

I’m certainly not going to defend what was taught in the link I provided, since I in no way agree with them. I just provided it to show that some do interpret his teaching on universal salvation to mean that all are saved.

Dave:

It seems from the context of John Paul’s writings, he uses the term “universal salvation” in the orthodox sense. For instance, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the reasons it was fitting that Jesus should suffer on the cross is “because it is befitting the universal salvation universali salvationi] of the entire world.” (Summa Theologica, III, 46, 4).

Maybe we can start a thread some day to examine John Paul II’s teaching of “universal salvation”. Maybe we can also try to determine what he meant when he repeately taught things such as that Jesus “united himself with each man forever” through the incarnation. I am pretty sure he also taught that every man possesses the divine nature, which is, or course, sanctifying grace. I know he taught that the “holy Ghost dwells in every soul”, which is another interesting statement.

I admit, I don’t know what he meant by some of his statements, but I do want to research it sometime. I think it would be an interesting study, and I have never seen such a study before.

If you want to look into this with me, maybe we can start a thread sometime. Let me know if that interests you. It does me.

 

[USMC]

Jeesh, Dave,

I just went to the link and saw that it was a sedavantism site, posting 101 heresies of John Paul II. What on earth? Did you see that? Apparently this is the diet USMC feeds on. :bigyikes:
romancatholicism.org/index.htm

Rykell, you are just bitter because I was able to provide links to the Vatican website to reference my quotes, when you said I wouldn’t be able to.
Rykell=:

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?

Then I provided the Vatican link and you claimed that I misinterpreted the quotes and took them out of context. But I neither attempted to interpret them, neither did I claim to provide the context. I simply quoted his words.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Apparently this is the diet USMC feeds on. :bigyikes:
romancatholicism.org/index.htm

I pray that is isn’t. I also pray that USMC reads through that web site thoroughly, because it illustrates in a rather obvious and absurd fashion what I’ve been trying to explain to him. The faulty methodology which he adhere’s to in his argumentation here at CAF is the primacy of personal interpretation of magisterial texts contrary to the mind of the living magisterium.

USMC states emphatically that he does not claim the Pauline Mass is invalid, he instead thinks the Council of Florence does. In the Air Force, we call that quibbling.

IF USMC were the authentic interpreter of tradition (which he isn’t), then one must conclude that St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, et. al. are acting contrary to the Council of Florence when these holy fathers affirm the necessary and sufficient form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is “This is my body…This is my blood.”

Yet, his sola traditio methodoloy cannot produce certainty, contrary opinions notwithstanding. You’d think the lessons of Feeneyism would have been learned already. Instead, sola traditio produces only personal opinion, and often not very good one’s. Such methods can be used to accuse even St. Pius V of heresy (as that Jansenist web site cited by USMC shows).

Anyone who arrogates to himself the authority to interpret papal and councilar documents of the past contary to the authority of the living magisterium fail to grasp how UN-traditional and UN-Catholic such methods are. This was Feeney’s error, this is the error of the Jansenist webpage cited by USMC, and it is also the error USMC commits when attempting to refute Paul VI certain assurance that the meaning of the necessary and sufficient form of the Eucharist has not changed.

Yet, unlike this Jansenist web site and those like Fr. Feeney, USMC hasn’t definitively stated that the pope is heretical. He instead seems to “suggest” it, “imply” it, “question” it, thereby employing the tactics mastered by “progressives” such as Fr. Raymond Brown, who merely question and indirectly imply a dissenting viewpoint, so that later he can excuse himself from culpability of such claims. I don’t much cotton to quibbling, however.

 

[Rykell]

Excuse me??? I’m bitter USMC?

I’m the one who found them on my own, and printed the errors before you even posted the links. Remember how I found them? Piece of cake … I only need to find a rad-trad website that is known for apostasy.

There is no known reason to casually inject into this thread that John Paul believed all would be saved and that none would go to hell. What were you trying to prove? Who gives a good gosh darn what heretics think? You delighted in posting this, and are hiding under your skirt tails to avoid being caught.

If you believed it was untrue, and had love for the Pope and the Church, there is NO WAY you would print this slanderous nonsense for others to see.