About “pro multis”

[MikeDunphy]

So are we to assume that Jesus only died for SOME people, but not all?

Are we now to become Calvinists? How are we to know who makes it to the predestined, the so called “elect” and who is just out of luck no matter what they do?

When I left Protestantism I THOUGHT I was leaving Calvinism far behind. Was I mistaken?

If God has already chosen who Jesus died for, and who he did not die for, then why even fool with baptism and going to Mass everything is already “fixed” no matter what we do or do not do.

A common Catholic belief is that God is outside of time and can see the entire history of the universe. He already knows the choices you will freely make. What you do in life matters, because God is a just judge. “The elect” are those who enter heaven, but the phrase does not imply double-predestination. “The elect” enter heaven because God wills what is good for them, and they consent to His will. The damned reject God and He does not force Himself on them.

Perhaps Jesus at the Last Supper refrained from praying for those eventually damned because He did not want to increase their blameworthiness. Perhaps, on the eve of His suffering, He wanted to show His love particularly for those who return His love.

Some say that both the blessed and the damned are surrounded by the same glory of God, but that the experience of God’s glory is joyful for some and painful to others, depending on the state of their souls. Maybe when Christ our God pays particular attention to people, they experience His glory more intensely, so it would have been a blessing to the saved for Christ to attend to them, and a mercy to the damned for Christ in some sense to pull away from them.

Please note the maybes and the perhapses. If this doesn’t help, I’m sure you can find a better explanation. May God help us to know and love the truth and forgive errors made in good faith.

 

[Rykell]

Quote:
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)

USMC:

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

USMC, due to your incessant preoccupation with heretical websites, your catholicism is highly off base and ill-informed. The condemnation of the Cardinal’s words is due to three errors from your sites:

a. Vatican II is merely a “pastoral” council. (Assumption: no need to obey)
b. Ecumenism as expressed in the documents is to be opposed.
c. Outside the Church there is no salvation. (EENS)

I believe the Cardinal spoke Catholic truth, but every traditional site on the web that I searched has used his words as rationale to oppose Church teachings, due to their blind adherence to “sola traditio” as Dave pointed out. You need to understand your faith in light of present teachings which are always going to be proclaimed in fuller truth as we develop and grow in our understanding of God’s revelation.

I think these few words of his are a reflection of how the Church understands ecumenism today:

1. The Feast of the Apostle Paul that we celebrate today at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer suggests to us the direction that we must take. It points us in the direction of conversion. The teaching of Jesus himself begins with an invitation to conversion: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mk 1: 15). The same holds for ecumenism if we wish to make headway. The Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council clearly states that ecumenism is impossible without conversion, purification of the memory and heart; without a renewal of mind, language and behaviour.

We are used to speaking about the conversion of others; however, conversion must begin in ourselves. We must not look at the speck in our brother’s eye when we miss the plank in our own (cf. Mt 7: 3). Ecumenism encourages us to exercise self-criticism. As the Holy Father said, [ecumenical dialogue] also serves as “an examination of conscience” and must be an exhortation to seek forgiveness (Ut Unum Sint, n. 34). It is not simply others who must convert; we all must convert to Christ. To the degree that we are united to him, we are also united among ourselves.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040125_week-prayer_en.html

Continued …

 

[Rykell]

Continuing …

The biased excerpts taken out of context continuously on these sites have completely distorted the truth, and rather than submit to OUR teachings, you believe these fallible wolves who seek to destroy your faith. It will take a great deal of debriefing to bring you back to the purity of essential teaching. Do you ever read the Catechism dated 1994? Older catechisms seem to be the limit of your searching, and do not incorporate the growth in present-day doctrine.

For instance, I note this teaching that the critical part referencing the *doctrinal aspect *of the Council was totally and deliberately left out. If you do not read the actual documents, and accept this error blindly, is it any wonder you are confused?
(This refers to your error “a” above that causes you to reject ecumenism. Why? The documents, as you have said elsewhere, are simply “pastoral.”)

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

Compare what was actually said in the document:

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v2.html

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.

The seriousness of repeating these errors cannot be underscored enough. No doubt you speak them with ignorance of the truth, because as we noted, the truth is conveniently omitted.

 

[AlexV]

Actually, Bear6, rather than admit you were wrong, you have simply dropped the issue until someone else entered the fray with the statement that hoi polloi = the many.

You’ve ignored the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, accepted by all classical scholars as the gold standard for Greek translation. You’ve ignored the view of a Ph.D. in Greek.

Basically, you’ve done this:

1. Argued that hoi polloi can = something other than the precise words “the many” (something I never disputed).
2. After entering the synonym game, made a leap from a synonym or synonyms to the Holy Grail of your English semantics game: ALL.

Sloppy philology, sloppy translation. Maybe ICEL is hiring? They do this sort of thing all the time, and it’s dishonest.

ALL is not an accurate English translation for hoi polloi or multi.

You can be in all the “company” you want. Such company is ignorant of the rules of lexicography and these two classical tongues, or has decided that for some reason the rules can be broken to suit their purposes.

Over two Oxford pages, Bear. No “multitude”. No “all”. Plenty on many and “more than few”, even “very many” (A RARE DEFINITION, cited in FEW sources, none biblical). But NOT ALL or even MULTITUDE.

Guess how scholarly dictionaries work, Bear? They define words. Then they list synonyms. Neither your definition nor your synonyms appear in the dictionary.

Now, amazingly, under PANTES in the Greek dictionary the word MANY occurs nowhere.

 

[netmilsmom]

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.

I think that the easy way to prove your point is with a reference.
If you don’t give a reference as Alex has done, you are just typing how YOU feel.

In that case, I would go with the person with the degree.

And BTW, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It’s all Greek to me.

 

[USMC]

USMC, due to your incessant preoccupation with heretical websites, your catholocism is highly off base and ill-informed. The condemnation of the Cardinal’s words is due to three errors from your sites:

a. Vatican II is merely a “pastoral” council. (Assumption: no need to obey)
b. Ecumenism as expressed in the documents is to be opposed.
c. Outside the Church there is no salvation. (EENS)

A: We are required to submit to councils, even if they are only pastoral councils.** However, if a non-infallible council errs we are not required to believe it. Based on the past 40 years, it seem that no one knows wht Vatican II “meant”, since everyone has their own interpretation of it. But I don’t think you obey Vatican II. Do you accept Vatican II? Do you? ** Let’s find out. Vatican II taught the following:

1.) “The use of Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 36).

Do you agree with that? Do you agree that Latin is to be used in the sacraments in the Latin Rites? Please answer.

B: Maybe you can tell me what ecumenism is. Is it the attempt to bring non-Catholics into the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvatio? Or is it an attempt to unite the Catholic Church with heretics, schismatics, and member of other false religions, into one “big tent” religion?

C: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is an infallible dogma of the faith, and as such is irreformable. Anyone who rejects it is a heretic. Surely you do not reject that dogma, do you? And surely you do not want me to fill your computer screen with quotes proving it is a dogam, do you?

I believe the Cardinal spoke Catholic truth,

Really? That’s interesting because when you first read the quote you claimed that it was so outrageous it must not be a true quote. You said: “I suppose you want us to believe that quote is true also, when nothing you have posted yet is reliable…”.

I guess you did a little research and found that the quote is accurate. Therefore you were forced to switch gears again, just as you did when I showed that the quotes from John Paul II were accurate, and were to be found on the Vatican website.

So now you agree with the quote from the Cardinal, do you? Let’s see what you agree with:

Cardinal Kasper): 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: …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)

So, the ecumenism to which you adhere does not seek the conversion of non-Catholics? That doesn’t suprise me.

but every traditional site on the web that I searched has used his words as rationale to oppose Church teachings

What Church teaching to they oppose? What is the Church teaching on this point? Is it “big tent” ecumenism, or ecumenism which seeks to bring others into the Catholic Church “outside of which there is no salvation”?

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

You need to understand your faith in light of** present teachings** which are always going to be proclaimed in fuller truth as we develop and grow in our understanding of God’s revelation and doctrine.

Does the Catholic faith change? Development of dogma is one thing, but the “evolution of dogma” is quite another, and has been explicitly condemned.

You seem to think that Catholic faith has been passed on as a philosohpic invention to be perfected by the human mind, rather than a divine deposit to be guarded and protected. That was explicitly condemned at Vatican I

Vatican I "**For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding **"Therefore …] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.’’ [Vatican I].

Developed dogmas will never change from one meaning to another. They will keep the same exact meaning, but me more clearly understood. Evolution of dogma, which is an error of the modernists, is when the dogma changes from one meaning to another.

I think these few words of his are a reflection of how the Church understands ecumenism today:

That quote was not enough to describe what the Church understands by “ecumenism today”. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Does “ecumenism today” seek for those outside the Church to come into the Church? Or does it seek a false unity with those of other religions and denomination who do not convert? That is what it boils down to. One is true, one is false.

Please tell me which form of ecumenism the Church teaches “today”.

 

[Rykell]

For the record, USMC, it is difficult to dialog with you, as your tone is in hubristic attack mode, with an air of “I’m right … you’re wrong”
—rather than, “please explain … I’m listening.”

You confirmed my suspicions, for you are not the first person I came across who espoused these erroneous beliefs, most of which come from these websites.

What you are asking of me is to do your work for you and print out from the documents what the Church teaches. May I ask you to swear under oath that you personally read *Lumen Gentium, 14-16, *and the *Decree on Ecumenism? * Everything in me says you did not, and that is the crux of your disbelief in present teachings.

Though I am capable of rebutting you, in light of the above, I think it is best to send you to the “horse’s mouth” and instead of reading those websites in which you put entire credence, try reading Truth for a change. Then come back and we’ll discuss.

**You seem to think **that Catholic faith has been passed on as a philosohpic invention to be perfected by the human mind, rather than a divine deposit to be guarded and protected. That was explicitly condemned at Vatican I

You do not know what I think, nor do you care, as you said earlier in the thread. More unfounded assumptions that confirm your unyielding and provocative rhetoric.

 

[USMC]

For the record, USMC, it is difficult to dialog with you, as your tone is in hubristic attack mode, with an air of “I’m right … you’re wrong” ."

Am I supposed to be open to error, when I know what the truth is? Am I supposed to be open, for example, to the possibility that multis means “all”, when it clearly means many?

Being “open” to consider that the Church has taught error for over 1900 years is not a virtue. Submitting to, and holding fast to, the unchanging teachings of the Church in the midst of error and confusion is a virtue.

—rather than, “please explain … I’m listening.”

Actually, I did ask you to explain what “todays ecumenism” is, and I really would be interested in hearing your explanation. I know what true ecumenism is, and I know what false ecumenism is. I also know that many men in positions of authority today promote false ecumenism, which was explicitly condemned in Mortalium Animos not too long ago.

Pope Pius XI said that those who promote the false ecumenism we see today “are decieved” and, if not stopped, will *“destroy the foundations of the Catholic Church”. *Read Mortalium Animos. It is available online.

You confirmed my suspicions, for you are not the first person I came across who espoused these erroneous beliefs, most of which come from these websites.

To be honest, I have no idea what “erroneous beliefs” you are talking about. All of my beliefs come from the teaching of the Church. If you will list the “erroneous beliefs” you are referring to I will produce the magisterial documents that teach them.

What you are asking of me is to do your work for you and print out from the documents what the Church teaches.

Actually, I just wanted you to tell me in your own words what you believe “today’s ecumenism” is.

Though I am capable of rebutting you, in light of the above, I think it is best to send you to the “horse’s mouth” .

There’s nothing to rebut, I just asked for your explanation. To be honest, I really don’t know what you think “today’s ecumenism” is. I really do not know, and that’s why I asked. It would only take you a minute to explain it to me in your own words.

But I will tell you, I have asked many people to explain what ecumenism means and they couldn’t do it. They didn’t know how to describe it. It seems to be some vague notion that no one can define That is why I asked you to tell me what it is.

But before you do, be sure to read Mortalium Animos. It is not very long and easy to understand. Here is the link: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

 

[palmas85]

Am I supposed to be open to error, when I know what the truth is? Am I supposed to be open, for example, to the possibility that multis means “all”, when it clearly means many?

Being “open” to consider that the Church has taught error for over 1900 years is not a virtue. Submitting to, and holding fast to, the unchanging teachings of the Church in the midst of error and confusion is a virtue.
Actually, I did ask you to explain what “todays ecumenism” is, and I really would be interested in hearing your explanation. I know what true ecumenism is, and I know what false ecumenism is. I also know that many men in positions of authority today promote false ecumenism, which was explicitly condemned in Mortalium Animos not too long ago.

Pope Pius XI said that those who promote the false ecumenism we see today “are decieved” and, if not stopped, will *“destroy the foundations of the Catholic Church”. *Read Mortalium Animos. It is available online.
To be honest, I have no idea what “erroneous beliefs” you are talking about. All of my beliefs come from the teaching of the Church. If you will list the “erroneous beliefs” you are referring to I will produce the magisterial documents that teach them.

Actually, I just wanted you to tell me in your own words what you believe “today’s ecumenism” is.

There’s nothing to rebut, I just asked for your explanation. To be honest, I really don’t know what you think “today’s ecumenism” is. I really do not know, and that’s why I asked. It would only take you a minute to explain it to me in your own words.

But I will tell you, I have asked many people to explain what ecumenism means and they couldn’t do it. They didn’t know how to describe it. It seems to be some vague notion that no one can define That is why I asked you to tell me what it is.

But before you do, be sure to read Mortalium Animos. It is not very long and easy to understand. Here is the link: papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

My friend USMC you apparently don’t understand at all:tsktsk: Yes the document you pointed out was indeed produced by the Church and by a valid Pope, BUT, being a pre Vatican II Pope, his understanding and comments must be taken with a grain of salt. I mean after all, the Church, especially the laity but also the clergy and even the Popes themselves prior to Vatcan II obviously existed in a sea of darkness, held back as it were by a blindness of spirit in the cold winter that was not lifted until the breath of spring ushered in by Vatican II, which opened our eyes and our hearts to the wonders of faith that we never knew existed before.

Time to wake up my friend and get aboard that great ecumenical train before it leaves you at the station.

 

[Rykell]

USMC:

Am I supposed to be open to error, when I know what the truth is?

I know what true ecumenism is, and I know what false ecumenism is.

Pope Pius XI said that those who promote the false ecumenism we see today “are deceived”

…**I will produce **the magisterial documents that teach them.

This is openness? This is "please explain so I can understand your viewpoint? You must think I’m illiterate, when you preface everything with “I know.”

But I will tell you, I have asked many people to explain what ecumenism means and they couldn’t do it. They didn’t know how to describe it. It seems to be some vague notion that no one can define That is why I asked you to tell me what it is.

I read above that Dave presented this to you in the documents erased by the crash. Did that change a thing in your understanding? Absolutely not. You ask me to explain, only to discern whether I have the ability, not that you are a whit interested in learning. It is only to bait me for further opportunity to display and perpetuate your errors. No, I will not honor that until I discern real “seeking” and a bit more charity as you converse with a brother in Christ.

BTW, is your name Anthony?

 

[USMC]

I read above that Dave presented this to you in the documents erased by the crash.

The discussion ended when Dave did not respond. (The moderators first deleted the post, but then said I was free to re-post it). I sent the post to Dave via PM to be sure he received it. He responded by saying he received it, and that he would try to respond, but never did.

I still have the post saved on another computer (I am charging the battery now) and will re-post it in this thread a little later for you to read. I would also be very interested in Dave’s (or your) reply do it.

BTW, is your name Anthony?

No, why do you ask?

 

[TradyDaddy]

For the record, USMC, it is difficult to dialog with you, as your tone is in hubristic attack mode, with an air of “I’m right … you’re wrong” —rather than, “please explain … I’m listening.”…
…You confirmed my suspicions, for you are not the first person I came across who espoused these erroneous beliefs, most of which come from these websites…

Rykell, stating what previous Popes and Saints have written is not declaring a personal superior understanding of an issue. The heart of all of these discussions is simply this… how do you harmonize the modern theology with 1900+ years of Catholic teachings?

When you talk about those who you have come accross “who espoused these erroneous beliefs”, are you talking about the erroneous beliefs St. Thomas Aquinas, or the erroneous beliefs of Pope St. Pius V, or the erroneous beliefs of the Councel of Trent or of the First Vatican Council??? Do you mean those erroneous beliefs?

Apparently the Holy Spirit changed His mind in the early 1960’s on a few subjects. We’re just asking great thinkers such as yourself to help us understand these things.

 

[netmilsmom]

My friend USMC you apparently don’t understand at all:tsktsk: Yes the document you pointed out was indeed produced by the Church and by a valid Pope, BUT, being a pre Vatican II Pope, his understanding and comments must be taken with a grain of salt. I mean after all, the Church, especially the laity but also the clergy and even the Popes themselves prior to Vatcan II obviously existed in a sea of darkness, held back as it were by a blindness of spirit in the cold winter that was not lifted until the breath of spring ushered in by Vatican II, which opened our eyes and our hearts to the wonders of faith that we never knew existed before.

Time to wake up my friend and get aboard that great ecumenical train before it leaves you at the station.

In reading this thread backward from the last post, I nearly spewed coffee all over the screen until I continued to scroll up and read that it was you!
A near disaster in the waiting with my hubby being away on business. How would I ever clean it all up?

 

[Rykell]

Trady,

You and I have been around the maypole before, so I don’t think much has changed, especially when I see wording like this:

Apparently the Holy Spirit changed His mind in the early 1960’s on a few subjects. We’re just asking great thinkers such as yourself to help us understand these things

.

Kinda tells me, my man, that you are in the same mode as USMC. No good. You don’t want my help.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Trady,
You and I have been around the maypole before, so I don’t think much has changed, especially when I see wording like this:
Kinda tells me, my man, that you are in the same mode as USMC. No good. You don’t want my help.

Thank you for clearing that up Rykell. You addressed my questions exactly as I expected you would… by avoiding them.

 

[Rykell]

Sorry, Trady,
I was jolted by your “friendly” statement at the end and lost my concentration on your question. However, if you read my post with attention, it would have answered your Q.

You confirmed my suspicions, for you are not the first person I came across who espoused these erroneous beliefs, most of which come from these websites

Had I meant any of the popes or councils, I would not have used the word “person.” Ok?

 

[Rykell]

USMC, so you’re not Anthony.

Ok then he is your twin in rhetoric, for on another Catholic forum, he posed the identical questions as you have, but was armed with bear and quotes the minute someone answered his “innocent” questions. It was a ruse to slander John Paul II. He got booted and the thread closed. It would save me a lot of trouble typing in order to give you the answers that many knowledgable Catholics provided, and I’ll give you the link in a PM if you are interested in private learning … rather than as an excuse to publicly demean the Pontiff.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

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 …

With any modern browser Ctrl-f will bring up a search function for the text of a particular page into which you can plug in a the portion of the quote for which you are searching to jump straight to it. Of course, just being given a citation to a document should be enough, it is easy enough to find a copy on a site you trust and do the Ctrl-f trick to check the text posted, if you wer actually interested in checkign teh quote rather than casting aspersions suggesting the source had to be schismatic since it didn’t back your position.

On that note, the strawman of painting anyone objecting to the mistranslation as a radical traditionalist or worse is getting tiresome. I for one was disgusted by the obvious mistranslations instituted by the ICEL years before I was first interested enough in the TLM to attend, and its been a year since I last managed to get to a TLM.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

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.

Are you basing your argument that these adjetives can be freely swapped by linking them through synonyms of synonyms on top of being translated? Even within English there are plenty of cases where it it obvious that synonyms of synonyms are not themselves synonyms. Attempting to bridge synonyms as defensible equivalent when that can only be accomplished through linking intermediary words isn’t even a nice try, its ridiculous on its face.