Criticism of Things Catholic

[Marauder]

I just found from the USCCB’s own web page why the all vs. many issue exists in the Gospel of Mark from a linquistic viewpoint. The following quote comes from the footnotes of the online Bible located on their site.

For many: the Greek preposition hyper is a different one from that at Matthew 26:28 but the same as that found at Luke 22:19, 20 and 1 Cor 11:24. The sense of both words is vicarious, and it is difficult in Hellenistic Greek to distinguish between them. For many in the sense of “all,” see the note on Matthew 20:28.

Note: that they use the word “many” in their translation on the site.

P.S. Everyone have a great and blessed weekend.

 

[bobzills]

The church hasn’t proclaimed anything about the state of people’s salvation that were baptised in this matter. .

catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=27028
Vatican says ‘Baptisms’ using ‘Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier’ not Valid
and:
Is Baptism necessary for salvation?
Baptism is necessary for salvation, because Christ said, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5)
holyspiritinteractive.net/features/catholichandbook/30_baptism.asp
and according to the Council of Florence"
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[bobzills]

The difference between all and many in this case is small. .

Many words have “small” differences but still, a small difference in wording could be resp;onsible for a person going to hell. For example, the small difference in wording in the Sacrament of Baptism, completely invalidates it.

 

[elt1956]

Cora, thank you for such a beautiful response, and welcome home to the Catholic Church. You have verbalized what so many cradle Catholics fail to grasp. Many do not realize the harm they are doing to people inquiring about out true faith or the confusion they may be causing for those who are still learning. Your very witness will speak volumes and I thank you for it.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Let me first say I commend and admire cora cobb for her search for the right truth regarding the Catholic Faith. She has done something many of us Cradle Catholics fail to do. Compare and reason. Yes, Deac. I am one of THOSE Cradle Catholics of the 40s, and 50s whose sole education from the sisters and priests of that time was read, memorize and believe. This is a good approach for childrren who internalize what they see and hear and have a level of trust not found in adults. However, once one becomes old enough to wonder about some of the truths and mysteries of the Faith, it is then time to question, compare, reason, ask, and pray that one may find the needed answers.

Since beginning to post at the various threads on CAF, I have been doing just that. “Seek and you shall find” is what is said. And I have been seeking and finding. My interest in my Faith, both the questioning and defense of it ,has blossomed. I have started reading, questioning and asking those who seem to be more knowledgeable than I about some beliefs I have never understood. Yet, I don’t take their personal opinions as the end to all questions, but go to the source, Encyclicals, reading books on the Early Church and the Fathers of the Church and many other writings. I feel as though I am just making port out of a storm. I too am hoping that those new to the Faith will not take the writings on the posts as the last answer, but will search for themselves as Cora did and find the “whole truth” not just partial answers regarding the Catholic Faith. Peace.

 

[latinmasslover]

Then why did you bring it up in the first place. The extend a conversation on the difference between the word all and many and accepting what the church has to say on it to nazism is a perfect example on the entire idea of Godwin’s Law.

I guess you missed something in the article and were reading it through your own interpretation of the words.

Look at the following section you yourself quoted.

It says “everything the Bible asserts (properly understood of course)” In affect it means everything the Bible “teaches” is without error, it doesn’t say that EVERY WORD in the Latin Bible is without error. It is up to the magisterium to interpret the Bible. If they determine that the Latin translation of the Bible has a word that was (name removed by moderator)roperly translated, that is up to them. Either you accept the teaching ability of the magisterium or you don’t. In this case I am accepting their teaching authority.

And where exactly does it say in any Church document that every word of the Bible is not correct? Talk about picking and choosing. I’m not surprised though, since you admitted that you’d reconsider the reality of abortion being a sin, if that’s what the majority of the Church hierarchy said. You’re hiding behind a false obedience. I can’t simplify the obvious any more than I have, maybe someone else would be willing. This repetition is beyond irritating. In the “spirit of Vatican II” as accepted by many bishops: Do what you want. I’m through here. Au revoir.

 

[elt1956]

Cora, thank you for such a beautiful response, and welcome home to the Catholic Church. You have verbalized what so many cradle Catholics fail to grasp. Many do not realize the harm they are doing to people inquiring about out true faith or the confusion they may be causing for those who are still learning. Your very witness will speak volumes and I thank you for it.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hello Deacon Ed. First of all I would like to tell Cora how much I admire her resolve in finding the answers to her Faith that were confusing to her. I wish that in my childhood I had been given the guidence to use my reason when it came to questions of faith. I am a Cradle Catholic, having had a Traditional Catholic education of the 40s and 50s. In my Diocese, and I can speak only for my experience, we were taught to read, memorize and believe what we were told about our faith. This was a good approach for children young enough to internatize what they are told and have trust in the adults around them. But as one gets older and has questions regarding what is believed, I think, just as Cora did, one must search by asking, and yes, “questioning”, reading, praying and listening to others who may, or may not know what they are talking about.

After reading and posting on CAF on several threads, I can say with all honesty my faith is now stronger than when I first became a member here at CAF. This is so because I have begun to do what I was never taught to do regarding my religion. I have begun to read, ask questions, pray on what I have found and discuss topics with others, I have always been secure in my knowledge of the very core beliefs of the Catholic Church, but I had never taken the time to learn their foundation. Now I am. It is a great experience for me as I feel as though I am just now arriving at a secure port of belief. I hope anyone reading any of the posts does so with the intent of searching further and not taking what is posted here as the “gospel truth”. The forums are a starting point. Belief and knowledge doesn’t end here. For those stating “I am right, because I know”, once a judgement is made, one’s ability to learn is at an end. Peace

 

[Marauder]

And where exactly does it say in any Church document that every word of the Bible is not correct?

Sorry in this case the burden of proof is in your hands. The church has said the Bible is inerrant (not infallible as you claimed and already showed you that you were incorrect) but inerrant doesn’t mean that EVERY word in the Latin translation of the Bible is exactly correct. You will have to provide a source to back up your side. The church has only said that everything the Bible teaches is without error.

I’m not surprised though, since you admitted that you’d reconsider the reality of abortion being a sin, if that’s what the majority of the Church hierarchy said.

Sorry you are twisting my words, good thing I don’t trust you to interprete the Bible for me. I said that IF the Holy See had a change in their definition of abortion I would look at what they were saying and read their statements and decide then. I never said I would follow what they are saying with blind obediance. Why can you not see the difference in following the Holy See “blindly” in a case of the words many vs. all because I trust that the linguists, theologians, etc. may know more about that then me and blindly following the church if it said Nazism or abortion was OK? There is no parallel.

I know why they have said “all” or “many” in the same place. I know the reasons theologically why it could technically be either word both from a theological standpoint and a linguistic standpoint (now that I found that one footnote) so I will trust HMC in whichever one they decide to put into the English translation of the Bible. Either you trust the teaching authority of the church or you don’t.

 

[revelations]

Liturgy was made for man, not man for the liturgy.

Arguing about these asinine topics does nothing. Only our Lord knows who he shed his blood for. Not trusting in the teaching authority of the church is something very serious. To me, the RC faith is my sole foundation, the place to where i can turn when faced with any problem. Why? Because it was founded by our Lord, and he is present with us always.

Does it matter for your personal salvation whether Christ shed his blood for ALL of us, or only for MANY of us? I hope it would be all of us, but we choose of our own will whether we accept that sacrifice or not.

At the last day we won’t be judged on these trivialities, but on how much we loved. How much we loved God, and how much we loved one another.

As the RC faith was instituted by Jesus, I find questioning her teachings to be something rather serious. If the Holy Spirit has decided to reveal this truth, who are we to argue? So far, he’s been doing a good job. 2000 years and we’re still around, so what’s to argue?

Don’t let bad spirits blind us to the bigger problems of today.

-revelations

 

[bobzills]

Not trusting in the teaching authority of the church is something very serious. To me, the RC faith is my sole foundation, the place to where i can turn when faced with any problem. Why? Because it was founded by our Lord, and he is present with us always.

OK. So why not trust the teaching authority of the Church for the one thousand nine hundred year period before Vatican II and
follow what was taught by the Catholic Church, by Catholic Popes, by Catholic cardinals, by Catholic archbishops, by Catholic bishops, by Catholic priests, by Catholic theologians for almost two thousand years before Vatican II. Why not follow what was taught by the Catholic Catechism of the Council of Trent?

 

[elt1956]

OK. So why not trust the teaching authority of the Church for the one thousand nine hundred year period before Vatican II and
follow what was taught by the Catholic Church, by Catholic Popes, by Catholic cardinals, by Catholic archbishops, by Catholic bishops, by Catholic priests, by Catholic theologians for almost two thousand years before Vatican II. Why not follow what was taught by the Catholic Catechism of the Council of Trent?

To me the Church, the Popes, Cardinals etc. have the same power after Vatican II as before. I think many things about Vatican II were misunderstood not only by the laity, but also by the clergy who thought they were implementing the teachings of Vatican II. I am sure if we were to go to the source of the changes, ie. Rome, we would find that what has been done since Vatican II and many of the changes we have seen were not meant to be done in the way we see. We need to go back and study what was said, as I say at the source, the Pope and the Magesterium. I don’t think we can condemn what we, as least I, for one, know little about.

What are some of the things that have been changed that so disturb you? Anything in Doctrine and Dogma, or just traditions with a small t, which means they were not given ex cathedra?. Peace.

 

[reggieM]

OK. So why not trust the teaching authority of the Church for the one thousand nine hundred year period before Vatican II and
follow what was taught by the Catholic Church, by Catholic Popes, by Catholic cardinals, by Catholic archbishops, by Catholic bishops, by Catholic priests, by Catholic theologians for almost two thousand years before Vatican II. Why not follow what was taught by the Catholic Catechism of the Council of Trent?

Because outside of Pope Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church, all of those things lack an authentic interpreter as given by God.

 

[bobzills]

What are some of the things that have been changed that so disturb you? Anything in Doctrine and Dogma, or just traditions with a small t, which means they were not given ex cathedra?. Peace.

Well, which is it? Has the Blood been shed for many or has it been shed for all? Why the change after 2000 years?

 

[bobzills]

Because outside of Pope Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church, all of those things lack an authentic interpreter as given by God.

Still leaves unanswered the question as to why it was true for 2000 years that the Blood was shed for many, but after Vatican II, in the USA New Mass, it has been changed to the Blood is shed for all.

 

[elt1956]

Well, which is it? Has the Blood been shed for many or has it been shed for all? Why the change after 2000 years?

Oh quibble, quibble. It is still the same body and blood of Christ being shed. I am sure there have been many changes in wording, ritual etc. of the Mass in the past two thousand years that we are not even aware of. Have those changes shattered the strength and core of beliefs of the Catholic Church. Apparently not. We’re still here. . Get a grip.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi everybody,
If I may enter my:twocents: Let me see Jesus came into the WORLD (implying ALL) not to condemn the WORLD, but to save it. St. Paul said he became ALL things to ALL men, so he could save a few. Jesus died on the Cross for everybody. But he also realized that some people would not follow his teachings. So, not everybody would partake of the heavenly banquet. Do you guys get my meaning? I lost my train of thought.

Has anybody ever noticed on this thread and many other threads that we seem to :banghead: Why?

 

[revelations]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I like that emoticon. Does justice to this thread.

Seriously people, are you going to lose your faith over “many” or “all”?

As i said before, and i say again now, this is the most asinine argument i have seen to date. Love they God, love they neighbor, turn away from sin.

The devil is laughing all the way to the bank with this stuff.

 

[bobzills]

Oh quibble, quibble. It is still the same body and blood of Christ being shed. I am sure there have been many changes in wording, ritual etc. of the Mass in the past two thousand years that we are not even aware of. Have those changes shattered the strength and core of beliefs of the Catholic Church. Apparently not. We’re still here. . Get a grip.

All this says is to ignore the question. So as far as you can see, there is really no difference between the two teachings?
Take the two statements:
Many Catholics use artificial birth control.
All Catholics use artificial birth control.
Do you see a difference between those two statements or not?

 

[Marauder]

Many Catholics use artificial birth control.
All Catholics use artificial birth control.
Do you see a difference between those two statements or not?

This comparison is flawed for many reasons. First off, it does not involve a translation from ancient Greek, where neither word appears in the original language. Second the church hasn’t said the two words are interchangable in those sentences. Third the theology behind the change doesn’t make sense like the fact that Jesus came down and shed his blood for all that would accept it (thus allowing for a minor theological difference between the words all or many in just this case.)

I personally think that if you are arguing so much over this, there are deeper seated issues then just this one that are the problem.

Either you trust the teaching authority of the church or you don’t.

 

[bobzills]

This comparison is flawed for many reasons. First off, it does not involve a translation from ancient Greek, where neither word appears in the original language. Second the church hasn’t said the two words are interchangable in those sentences. Third the theology behind the change doesn’t make sense like the fact that Jesus came down and shed his blood for all that would accept it (thus allowing for a minor theological difference between the words all or many in just this case.)

I personally think that if you are arguing so much over this, there are deeper seated issues then just this one that are the problem.

Either you trust the teaching authority of the church or you don’t.

I don;t see here an explanation as to why for 2000 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for many, and that after Vatican II, it was said that the Blood was shed for all.

 

[Marauder]

I don;t see here an explanation as to why for 2000 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for many, and that after Vatican II, it was said that the Blood was shed for all.

:banghead:

The teaching of the church has not changed. We are talking the English translation of a single word that was originally not present in the Greek. Whether the Latin correctly translates as ‘all’ or ‘many’ hasn’t even been declared for “2000 years” Here is a good link to an explanation of this issue giving numerous quotes:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html

I am bowing out of this issue because I accept the teaching authority of the church so I will accept whichever the church says it should be, I feel I don’t need to go on.