About “pro multis”

[itsjustdave1988]

…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.

I don’t mind studying magisterial text and the other writings of John Paul II or any other Roman Pontiff. However, I think it should be done presuming “good faith” of the Roman Pontiff. I get the impression from your posts that you have an a priori view to distrust thing post-Vatican II, that you have a bias to presume John Paul II’s writings are heretical. You seem to see boogey men every where you look, after Vatican II. But perhaps I merely misjudge you.

 

[USMC]

I don’t mind studying magisterial text and the other writings of John Paul II or any other Roman Pontiff. However, I think it should be done presuming “good faith” of the Roman Pontiff. I get the impression from your posts that you have an a priori view to distrust thing post-Vatican II, that you have a bias to presume John Paul II’s writings are heretical. You seem to see boogey men every where you look, after Vatican II. But perhaps I merely misjudge you.

Dave, there is no question that there are a lot of “boogey men” out there - even in high places. I don’t think many informed Catholics would deny that.

But I think you misjudged what I meant about studying John Paul II’s writings. I readily admit that I have some real problems with many actions of John Paul II. For example his inviting snake worshipers, and worshipers of “The Great Thumb” to Assisi to commit an objective mortal sin against the first commandment in the hope that God would look upon this mortal sin and grant “world peace” does indeed cause me some concern, and logically makes me wonder what in the world John Paul II was thinking.

However, my intent in studying his teaching on salvation was not to look for something that was false, or look for a way to condemn him, but rather to truly try and figure out what his thinking was. This is something that I have been planning to do on my own, but I know that you are pretty good ar research, and it might be better to do in a small group.

There are some curious things that he said and did. In all honesty, I really wonder what he meant. That would be my true motivation for doing the research. To try to figure out what he was thinking.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas,

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.

Your exact words below:
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."

It would seem to me that if the Church has indeed found greater meaning theologically in the translation of Pro Multis, , then it has the duty, no, it has the obligation to share that deeper understanding with the rest of the world and in so doing rescue them in effect from the lack of understanding that we in the western, well English speaking world, that is, have been saved from.

Believe it or not the rest of the worlds Bishops know full well of the horrid mis-translations of the Liturgy that exist in the English speaking world. These translations did not just occur you know, and most Bishops are fairly well educated and really do know what the other Bishops are up to.

 

[Rykell]

At the risk of repeating myself again, Palmas, there is not much you and I can do about it, even though you or I hold that opinion. For the present the language is in the sacramentary and will stay there until and if it is changed.

Is it really worth all of this controversy? We are tearing ourselves apart over it, yet it has little to do with the “form” of consecration. Your point is well taken, appreciated as your opinion, and laid to rest as being futile to debate any further over it.

best regards,
Ryan

 

[USMC]

Yet, his sola traditio methodoloy cannot produce certainty, contrary opinions notwithstanding.

Now Dave, you know better than that. Is it solo tradition to use, as my authority, magisterial documents? Would it be solo traditio to use the Bible?

Solo traditio would mean a person relied on tradition alone, and not on magisterial documents (such as Church councils and Catechisms) or on scripture. I use all of the above.

But I know you didn’t come up with the “solo traditio” phrase all by yourself. You learned it from websites, but probably never took time to think about it. Because if you had given it just a little thought you would have realized that those who rely on both the Scriptures and magisterial documents are not relying on “traditione alone”.

But maybe you are in the habit of parroting what you read without thinking about it.

BTW, I notice that you still haven’t responded to my question as to whether you believe the Mass approved by Rome, which has no words of consecration, is valid. Why haven’t you responded? I even started a new thread so you couldn’t give the excuse that I was off topic.

Why haven’t you responded? Is it because, in order to defend it, you would have to claim the contrary of what you have always stated, and what you have always believed? That *“This is My Body”, *and “This is My Blood” are not the Form of consecration, and are completely unecessary? I’m not sure if you will be able to bring yourself to completely reverse what you have taught repeateldy on these boards. We’ll see.

 

[palmas85]

At the risk of repeating myself again, Palmas, there is not much you and I can do about it, even though you or I hold that opinion. For the present the language is in the sacramentary and will stay there until and if it is changed.

Is it really worth all of this controversy? We are tearing ourselves apart over it, yet it has little to do with the “form” of consecration. Your point is well taken, appreciated as your opinion, and laid to rest as being futile to debate any further over it.

best regards,
Ryan

I personally don’t think it has much to do with the form of the consecration being valid either. It really doesn’t matter to me as long as the intent is correct. However, it does seem to me that what is good for us should be good for everyone else and vice versa, thats all. And in all honesty, I cannot think of any valid reason for the translation except as I have stated, a bow towards ecumenism and political correctness in the English speaking world, which for some reason seems to be unduly concerned with such things.

Peace be with you Ryan, I enjoyed reading your posts.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now Dave, you know better than that. Is it solo tradition to use, as my authority, magisterial documents? Would it be solo traditio to use the Bible?

I described what I meant by solo traditio in the post: “the primacy of personal interpretation of magisterial texts contrary to the mind of the living magisterium.”

You are a lay person, not vested with magisterial authority. The primacy of personal interpretation (like that employed by Feeneyism) is erroneous. Your authority as a Catholic is the living magisterium’s interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition. This is discussed in detail, here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

St. Thomas Aquinas: “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be” Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8]

 

[USMC]

You are a lay person, not vested with magisterial authority. The primacy of personal interpretation (like that employed by Feeneyism) is erroneous. Your authority as a Catholic is the living magisterium’s interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition. This is discussed in detail, here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

But as I asked Bear06, how am I to know what the magisterium is saying? Doesn’t that require some sort of interpretation?

And if I can interpret what is being taught today, why can’t I interpret what was taught yesterday?

According to you I am allowed to believe the new Catechism, but not an old one? If I can believe an old Catechism also, how can I accept, for example, “for all” in the new Mass, when the Catechism of Trent said “for all” was wrong? Which teaching of the magisterim am I to believe? Are there two magisteriums? Is one now outdated? Were those who believed the Catechism of Trent all deceived?

Am I left on shifting sand, to believe the latest teaching regardless of its continuity, or lack thereof, with what the Church has always taught?

Am I to believe the following quote from the man John Paul II appointed to the highest office in the Church, and placed in charge of Christian Unity?

Cardinal Kasper): The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others should ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end. …. Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘protestants’ or that the others should become ‘catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism." (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9)

Am I to adhere to that error. After all, it was taught by Cardinal Kapser, who John Paul II appointed as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - the Vatican office in charge of ecumenism.

Am I to forget all that the Church has taught and submit to this error? Do you? ** According to what you have said, you must. After all, this is a member of the hierarchy, and was appointed to this exalted position by John Paul II. ** How can you claim to be with the Pope if you reject the ecumenical teachings of the man appointed by John Paul II to be in charge of ecumenism?

Remember your definition of “solo tradition”

Dave:

I described what I meant by solo traditio in the post: “the primacy of personal interpretation of magisterial texts contrary to the mind of the living magisterium.”

OK then, do you accept the teachings of Cardinal Kasper - a member of the living magisterium - who was appointed by John Paul II to be in charge of Ecumenism?

**I would really like to know: Do you agree with that teaching of Cardinal Kasper? And if not, why not? On what authority do you reject it? **

 

[blackrobe]

In every high school in America, a Latin student who translated “pro multis” as “for all” would get an F.

That’s because “pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.”

However you want to spin the issue, this all comes down to Latin and how to translate that language.

The Latin language has words for “all”. “Multis” isn’t one of them.

And no bishop, not even a pope, can make Latin say what Latin doesn’t say.

“Pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.” Period.

I haven’t followed this whole thread but I would like to make one point. Forgive me if this has already been mentioned . . .

I agree that “for all” is an incorrect translation of pro multis. I have my suspicions regarding the motives of the translators and propagators of this error but I am not sufficiently informed or competent to assert them. However, I do believe it is relevant to point out that the phrase pro multis, even when rendered “for many” does not necessarily preclude the meaning “for all”. The “all” for whom Christ died are indeed many.

BTW, the priest who uaually offers Mass in my parish uses several variations of the words of consecration, including last weekend “for people everywhere.” So count you blessings.

JSA

 

[Rykell]

Oh my, you switched websites again, USMC. I know where the slander of Cardinal Kaspar came from also. You make your rounds and then bring that garbage back here. Slandering another prelate of the Church? Do you ever quit? I suppose you want us to believe that quote is true also, when nothing you have posted yet is reliable, but twisted.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I even started a new thread so you couldn’t give the excuse that I was off topic.

I just found the thread.

For the sake of completeness with regard to “pro multis” and “mysterium fidei”, do you really believe Pope St. Pius X’s Catechism was a dissenting view from Florence? Or is it possible that Florence was merely stating what the liturgical form used by the Latin Church was without making a *definitive *pronouncement regarding the necessary and sufficient form?

If you are correct, and Florence intended to define for us the necessary and sufficient form, then that would invalidate the ancient Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which omits “mysterium fidei,” wouldn’t it? Do you really think that was what Florence did?

Likewise, among the historical canons of the Catholic Church, the words “pro multis” and “mysterium fidei” were often omitted entirely. For instance, the canon of St. Hippolytus of Rome, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: “And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’” Was this consecration also invalid?

Moreover, do you believe the decrees of Florence or St. Pius V on the subject were a *de fide definita, *and if so why do you suppose Dr. Ludwig Ott’s pre-Vatican II source *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *describes this as sententia certa and not infallible *de fide *teaching?

Dr. Ott asserts: "The form of the Eucharist consists in Christ’s Words of institution, uttered at the Consecration. (sent. certa)"

It appears to me that contrary to your thesis, even if one were to omit “pro multis” and “mysterium fidei” from the consecration altogether, it would still not be invalidating based upon the historical canons of the ancient Church, the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, and the living magisterium. Therefore I must conclude that Florence and Pius V’s statements were not intending to define that which was necessary and sufficient form, but intended instead to explain the liturgical form of the Latin Church in its defense against the claim that the Epiclesis even without the words of Christ, are the words of Institution.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But as I asked Bear06, how am I to know what the magisterium is saying? Doesn’t that require some sort of interpretation?

Certainly. But you have recourse to two-way communication with the living magisterium, and do not have to rely upon your mastery of ancient texts. Furthermore, that one must interpret in communication with others is a given. Documents cannot say, “Wait! You have misunderstood me.” Yet, the living magisterium is given Divine authority to do just that.

That one should obstinately conclude that his own personal interpretation is the authentic interpretation, contrary to the Pope and the living magisterium is called dissent.

Pope St. Pius X: *"If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " *(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Which teaching of the magisterim am I to believe?

You’re not paying close enough attention…there is but one pope, the living pope. The office of the papacy ceases upon death. Likewise, there is but one living magisterium. If you took the time to read the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked to on the LIVING magisterium, you would not prosent such a false dichotomy.

Am I left on shifting sand, to believe the latest teaching regardless of its continuity, or lack thereof, with what the Church has always taught?

Fr. Feeney or the Jansenist you cited earlier could say exactly the same thing. Your error is the same, just applied to different issues.

St. Catherine of Sienna: “*Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” *(St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

 

[USMC]

I just found the thread.

For the sake of completeness with regard to “pro multis” and “mysterium fidei”, do you really believe Pope St. Pius X’s Catechism was a dissenting view from Florence? Or is it possible that Florence was merely stating what the liturgical form used by the Latin Church was without making a definitive pronouncment regarding the necessary and sufficient form?

If you are correct, and Florence intended to define for us the necessary and sufficient form, then that would invalidate the ancient Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which omits “mysterium fidei,” wouldn’t it? Do you really think that was what Florence did?

This is another topic altogether. There are two things to consider regarding the Form of consecration: The essential words that constitute the form, and the substance of the form. The substance of the Form depends on the essential words, and must properly express the sacrament, but these words are not identical with the essential words.

The essentail words are *This is My Body *and This is the Chalice of My Blood. These are the words given in the Catechism of Pius X, which is an abridged Catechism (unlike the Catechism of Trent which is a general Catechism and provides the entire Form of consecration); the words that follow “This is the Chalice of My Blood” are part of the substance of the Sacrement, but are not essential words. As such, there can be some variation in those words. But a change in the words which constitute the substance of the form (the words after This is the Chalice of My Blood) can effect the consecration, and result in it being invalid.

In other words, This is the Chalice of My Blood are the essential words. These words cannot be changed in any way; What follows is part of the Substance of the Form. A change in these words, depending on what the change is, can effect the consecration.

To be honest, I don’t want to get into another discussion on this point. It would take too much time. As it is, I am probably going to have to stop posting for at least a few days because I am starting to get busy at work.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**I would really like to know: Do you agree with that teaching of Cardinal Kasper? And if not, why not? On what authority do you reject it? **

I submit to the authentic teachings of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, in accord with their intention.

Pope Benedict XVI: “*this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” *(source)

I believe we have already discussed this issue of “ecumensim of the return,” although the thread was lost in the great CAF server crash.

Before going off into another tangent and discussing this again, I recommend you read *Truth and Tolerance *by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, where he explains the context of his comment above.

 

[Primitive]

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?

Well, I have a friend with this T-Shirt that has a good quote which may sum up your question, it says:
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations”…

 

[USMC]

I submit with the authentic teachings of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, in the manner of his intention.

Pope Benedict XVI: “this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (source)

Your memory must be giving out on you as we have already discussed this issue of “ecumensim of the return,” although the thread was lost in the CAF server crash.

Before going off into another tangent and discussing this again, I recommend you read *Truth and Tolerance *by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, where he explains the context of his comment above.

In the previous post you are referring to you never responded to me (I still have it saved).

Be forgetting that for now, if you would, please explain very briefly what “ecumenism of return” means. This idea has been rejected, so please tell me what it means and what it doesn’t mean.

You claim to know this based on the book you referenced. Since I haven’t read it, please pass along the information.

 

[MikeDunphy]

How’s your Greek? What does “hoi pollen” mean?

“hoi pollen” means “the many” and is a phrase not found in Matthew 26:28, making it irrelevant to a discussion of the consecration.

 

[bear06]

“hoi pollen” means “the many” and is a phrase not found in Matthew 26:28, making it irrelevant to a discussion of the consecration.

Sigh! While we’ll never agree, even Alex has admitted that it be defined as more than just the words “the many”. Many, multitude, populace, masses… And I’m sure Alex will be chiming in here to say that none of these mean more than many to which I don’t agree. Again, I’m in good company and happy to be here.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Who is to say whether Matthew or Luke spoke Jesus’s words?

Still using St. Matthew’s Gospel to attack the credibility of St. Luke’s, and vice versa, I see. Where does either Evangelist claim to be providing a complete transcript of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper? St. Luke says our Lord said “for you”, St. Matthew says our Lord said “for many”, and the Church in its Liturgies says that He said “for you and for many”.

 

[MikeDunphy]

“hoi pollen” means “the many” and is a phrase not found in Matthew 26:28

, making it irrelevant to a discussion of the consecration.Sigh! While we’ll never agree, even Alex has admitted that it be defined as more than just the words “the many”. Many, multitude, populace, masses… And I’m sure Alex will be chiming in here to say that none of these mean more than many to which I don’t agree. Again, I’m in good company and happy to be here.

You have missed my point entirely. Any interpretation you choose to give the phrase “hoi pollen” has nothing to do with the meaning of Matthew 26:28, because the phrase does not occur there. I gave you a link to a word by word translation Matthew 26:28 from Greek to English , so you could go see it for yourself.