Did jesus die for all?question

[Cristiano]

The Gospels in Greek say the same thing, as they also do translated into Aramaic. Liturgies of the Church prior to the New Mass consistently quoted our Lord as saying He was shedding His blood “for many”, as did the writings of the saints. This correction is long overdue.

I am not disagreeing with the correction. I think that in Latin is “pro-multis” and so it should be translated into “for many”. My point was that we should not do pop theology base on that single expression. The language, historical, and cultural context are critical too.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually friend the ODDS are a GREAT deal worse than 50-50

I would agree with that.

The words were “pro vobis et pro multis”

not “pro vobis et pro omnibus” (which would have been “for you and for all”)

or even “pro vobis et pro pluribus” (which would have been “for you and for very many”)

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The English translation of a Latin translation taken out of linguistic and historical context is getting closer to a pseudo sola scriptura approach and makes for bad theology.

Rome made it clear several years ago that “for all” was the wrong translation. I believe this came out in 2005, at which time Rome gave the Bishops two years to correct the error. Five years later and the error has yet to be corrected (but we are assured that it will be soon).

The following is what the universal Catechism of the Council of Trent taught on why Our Lord said many, and why He did not say* all*.

Catechism of Trent:

Form Of The Eucharist …

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form. …

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration. …

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.** For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race**. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. **When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect **from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine".

By mistranslating the words “for many” (which refer to the elect alone) as for all, implies the heresy of universal salvation. Let us thank God that Rome finally admitted the translation was an error and demanded the Bishops to correct it.

Regarding the number of those who are saved. Here’s a link to a sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice, who quotes the Bible and many Fathers of the Church to support his view on The Number of Those Who Are Saved.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Oh, my! I just finished reading the above article on the sermon of St. Leonard. What argument can there be against this?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Oh, my! I just finished reading the above article on the sermon of St. Leonard. What argument can there be against this?

Very powerful isn’t it? It is a good read for Advent, or for any time when we are feeling a little luke-warm.

 

[Gregory_I]

This is the traditional rendering, and it is superior because it is more faithful to the intent and meaning of scripture. THerefore, we should accept it.

 

[Carlan]

Actually friend the ODDS are a GREAT deal worse than 50-50

Christ did Die for ALL in order to make REDEMPTION possible to All. Salvation and Redemption are not of the same meaning.

Redemption means that the GATES to heaven are once again open; and access is again Possible.[They had been blocked by Orginial Sin in which we all share.]

Salvation is a process not a single act by God [HIS CHOICE} as evidenced by MANY bible references.

Love and prayrs,
Pat

Yes, Pat, thank you, may I just add that Jesus Redeemed all men by his death for our sins, however, we as individuals must accept in faith that redemption.and not all God’s children, so far anyway, have done that.peace, Carlan
[/quote]

 

[Cristiano]

Rome made it clear several years ago that “for all” was the wrong translation. I believe this came out in 2005, at which time Rome gave the Bishops two years to correct the error. Five years later and the error has yet to be corrected (but we are assured that it will be soon).

The following is what the universal Catechism of the Council of Trent taught on why Our Lord said many, and why He did not say* all*.

Catechism of Trent:

Form Of The Eucharist …

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form. …

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration. …

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.** For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all**; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. **When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect **from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine".

By mistranslating the words “for many” (which refer to the elect alone) as for all, implies the heresy of universal salvation. Let us thank God that Rome finally admitted the translation was an error and demanded the Bishops to correct it.

Regarding the number of those who are saved. Here’s a link to a sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice, who quotes the Bible and many Fathers of the Church to support his view on The Number of Those Who Are Saved.

Why did you skip to underline the part that I highlighted in blue? There is a big difference between an action itself and the fruits of the action. I completely agree that the fruits are limited to many but the action has been for all! If we refer to the action but we mean the fruits then we must make it clear, as it has been done at Trent. If we do not do that then we turn into a bunch of Calvinists.

BTW I do not have any issues with the “for many” translation. I think that it should be that way out of consistence.

 

[Carlan]

There is a big difference between an action itself and the fruits of the action. I completely agree that the fruits are limited to many but the action has been for all! If we refer to the action but we mean the fruits then we must make it clear, as it has been done at Trent. **If we do not do that then we turn into a bunch of Calvinists.**BTW I do not have any issues with the “for many” translation. I think that it should be that way out of consistence.

And we surely don’t want to go there peace, Carlan

 

[ProVobis]

Latin text of the actual promulgated Mass:

ACCÌPITE ET BIBITE
EX EO OMNES:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINES MEI
NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI,
QUI PRO VOBIS
ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR
IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
HOC FÀCITE
IN MEAN COMMEMORATIONEM.

Lame duck translation:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU,
AND DRINK FROM IT:
THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT.
IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU
AND FOR ALL (MEN)
SO THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

It has been decided by the Church that this translation is erroneous in today’s English vernacular. It seems as if everyone’s sins will not be forgiven. The fact that Christ died for all is not in dispute.

New Translation (I don’t know if this is official)

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

 

[Carlan]

Latin text of the actual promulgated Mass:

Lame duck translation:

It has been decided by the Church that this translation is erroneous in today’s English vernacular. It seems as if everyone’s sins will not be forgiven. The fact that Christ died for all is not in dispute.

New Translation (I don’t know if this is official)

I cannot see what is so hard to understand here in all of this.
Christ died for all and many will accept that fact and many will not accept it for what ever reason. Peace, Carlan

 

[JonHow]

I cannot see what is so hard to understand here in all of this.
Christ died for all and many will accept that fact and many will not accept it for what ever reason. Peace, Carlan

First it was… It’s OK not to tell the world the Third Secret of Fatima in 1960. This was really whose decision – Mary’s, the Mother of God, or a Pope’s?
Second it was… It’s OK not to capitalize a pronoun when it refers to one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity – but, do not forget to continue to always capitalize the pronoun “I”.
Third it was… It’s OK to remove the communion rail, not kneel when we receive the Eucharist and receive the Eucharist with dirty hands.
Fourth it was… It’s OK if you live by your conscience – Does not matter who formed it, where it was formed or how it was formed.
Fifth it was… It’s OK to use inclusive language even though the meaning is exclusive.
Sixth it was… It’s OK to believe the Bible is just a book of tales used to explain naturally occurring phenomena or hallucinations.
Seventh it was… It’s OK to believe the Theory of Evolution so long as you believe in Original Sin and that God created the universe out of nothing.
Eight it was… It’s OK to shuffle around pedophile priest from parish to parish and diocese to diocese.
Ninth it was… It’s OK to use a condom so long as you are a practicing homosexual.
Tenth it is… It’s OK to believe that God’s only Son, Jesus, suffered a horrible passion and death for the sins of “many”. To the unlearned does not this hint of predestination?

These are but ten of many examples of changes relating to today’s Catholicism versus yesterday’s. Does not anyone see a pattern here? Or it just me?

When my mother taught me to pray she said that Adam and Eve, the first humans, committed the Original Sin which caused God to expel them from Paradise and closed the Gates of Heaven to their descendents. In His own time God’s love and mercy for us allowed Him to send His only Son, Jesus, to suffer and die for our sins and to reopen the Gates of Heaven to all humanity. I learned that so long as you obeyed the Ten Commandments of God and the Laws and Precepts of the Catholic Church you would go to heaven. Those who would not were damned to Hell unless they repented of their sins by using the Sacrament of Penance or by the grace of God’s mercy are allowed to enter heaven.

Heavenly Father, please send us courageous shepherds who speak and write the truth. CHRIST DIED FOR THE SINS OF ALL HUMANITY; MEN’s, WOMEN’s, AND CHILDREN’s! WHICH INTELLECTUALS AMONG YOU CLAIM THEY CAN TELL ME HOW MANY SOULS GO TO HEAVEN AND HOW MANY ARE DAMNED TO HELL AND WHO THEY ARE? CATHOLICS ARE TOLD TO READ THE BIBLE BUT NOT TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND OR INTERPERT IT. NOBODY CAN HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!

 

[Gregory_I]

Christ uses “many” in the bible.

Matt. 26:28

New International Version (©1984)
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
New Living Translation (©2007)
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

English Standard Version (©2001)
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

International Standard Version (©2008)
because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is my blood, the blood of the promise. It is poured out for many people so that sins are forgiven.

King James Bible
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

American King James Version
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

American Standard Version
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Bible in Basic English
Take of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the testament, which is given for men for the forgiveness of sins.

Catholic Bible:
**Douay-Rheims Bible
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. **

Darby Bible Translation
For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins.

English Revised Version
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.

Webster’s Bible Translation
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin.

Weymouth New Testament
for this is my blood which is to be poured out for many for the remission of sins–the blood which ratifies the Covenant.

World English Bible
for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.

Young’s Literal Translation
for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out – to remission of sins;

** Mark 10:45**:

New International Version (©1984)
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
New Living Translation (©2007)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."

English Standard Version (©2001)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

International Standard Version (©2008)
because even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
It’s the same way with the Son of Man. He didn’t come so that others could serve him. He came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."

King James Bible
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

American King James Version
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

American Standard Version
For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Bible in Basic English
For truly the Son of man did not come to have servants, but to be a servant, and to give his life for the salvation of men.

**Douay-Rheims Bible
For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many. **

Darby Bible Translation
For also the Son of man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many.

English Revised Version
For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Webster’s Bible Translation
For even the son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Weymouth New Testament
For the Son of Man also did not come to be waited upon, but to wait on others, and to give His life as the redemption-price for a multitude of people."

World English Bible
For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Young’s Literal Translation
for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’

Text of the oldest complete Liturgy, the Divine Liturgy of St. James (The Root of the later Gregorian/Tridentine Rite)

He takes the cup, signs it and says, in a low voice:
Likewise after supper, taking the cup and mixing wine and water, gazing up to heaven and showing it to you, his God and Father, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying, filling it with the Holy Spirit, he shared it among his holy and blessed Disciples and Apostles, saying:

He puts down the cup and says aloud:
Drink from this all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out and distributed for you and for ***many ***for the forgiveness of sins.

Neither you nor I know better than the Church. Unless you are Protestant.

 

[Gregory_I]

Uh, The Catholic church teaches predestination, It’s called THomas aquinas.

Predestination is a stupid word anyway. GOd is outside of time, it’s not like he’s looking down a tunnel going “I think I’ll make this one so they can do that!”

GOd, who is outside of time, knows all the actions we will do of our own free will IF he were to make us. And yet, when our parents come together, he chooses that particular life with all of its forseen consequences to put in motion.

THerefore we are destined to do all that he has willed by his act of creation in light of his “foreknowledge” (another dumb word for God), but all that we do is free!!!

THerefore, yes, you were predestined by GOd to use all your free powers to freely choose to do that which you were predestined for by his willingness to bring you into existence in light of his foreknowledge.

If I knew that someone would hate me for offering them kindness, but offered it to them anyway, did my knowledge of their reaction, and the CHOICE TO implement that action DETERMINE them to react with hatred? No, because they retained the freedom of their will and intellect.

This is as close as I have come to synthesizing free will and predestination: God predestines the freedom of the will which he has knowledge of.

God remains Sovreign, and Master, and yet, you don’t get off the hook.

Predestination is NOT Determinism.

Get it?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Tenth it is… It’s OK to believe that God’s only Son, Jesus, suffered a horrible passion and death for the sins of “many”. To the unlearned does not this hint of predestination?

These are but ten of many examples of changes relating to today’s Catholicism versus yesterday’s. Does not anyone see a pattern here? Or it just me?

Heavenly Father, please send us courageous shepherds who speak and write the truth. CHRIST DIED FOR THE SINS OF ALL HUMANITY; MEN’s, WOMEN’s, AND CHILDREN’s! WHICH INTELLECTUALS AMONG YOU CLAIM THEY CAN TELL ME HOW MANY SOULS GO TO HEAVEN AND HOW MANY ARE DAMNED TO HELL AND WHO THEY ARE? CATHOLICS ARE TOLD TO READ THE BIBLE BUT NOT TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND OR INTERPERT IT. NOBODY CAN HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!

Folks this is not hard to understand. Jesus dies for all men, but the words “for many” in the consecration** do not refer to all those for whom Jesus died**. They refer only to the elect - that is, those who will be saved (see my earlier quote from the Catechism of Trent).

Regarding “changing” the words to for many. “For many” is not only what Jesus Himself said, but they are the words the Church has always used. “For all” was the incorrect translation that entered in when the Novus Ordo Mass was tranlsated into the vernacular in the late 60’s or early 70’s.

Regarding all the other changed you mentioned, as well as the almost total confusion that Catholics are faced with today in doctrinal matters: The way to keep from being led astray by the wolfs in sheels clothing currently occupies positions of authority, is to read books, encyclicals, and other documents from prior to 1960. While it is true that the Modernist heretics were alive and well prior to 1960, they remained under the surface. Around 1960 they rose to the surface and have caused great confusion.

To conclude the earlier point: I don’t think anyone here denies that Jesus died for all men. The Bible clearly teaches this, and the Calvanists are wrong for denying it. However, the words of consecration that we are speaking of do not refer to all those for whom our Lord died; they refer only to the elect. Therefore, by mistranslating the words in question as “for all” is actually heresy, since it implies that all men will be saved. Thankfully Rome finally admitted what the Traditionalists have said all along and is forcing the Bishops to correct the error.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

This is as close as I have come to synthesizing free will and predestination: God predestines the freedom of the will which he has knowledge of.

Here’s another way to understand it…

God gives us all free will and tells us what is required to be saved. In addition, He also sends us actual grace in order to help us save our souls. Some people believe what God has said; they do what He commands and avoid what He forbids. These people will save their souls. Other people do not believe what God has revealed; they do not do what He said or avoid what He forbids. These people will be damned.

Now, since God knows all things, it follows that He also know who will be saved and who will not. If God did not know this, He would not be all knowing. God, who is outside of time, sees the past, present, and future all at once. Those who will save their souls are known as the predestined. Those who will not save their souls are the damned. Just because God knew in advance who would save their soul does not mean he predestined the others to hell.

The error of the Calvanists is called Double Predestination. This error teaches that God actually predestined some souls for heaven and some for hell. In other words, they erroneously believe that God created some souls for the express purpose of going to hell. The truth is that God “desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth”, but, unfortunately, not all men will believe what He has revealed and do what He requires. Therefore, even though God desired their salvation, they will not attain it.

 

[JonHow]

Trisie, 30 Nov 2010 , 1:35 PM
“For what Jesus will judge us on, read His account of the Judgement of souls, and the criteria by which He will judge us, Matthew 25 verses 31-46. That shows the choice is up to us and that He certainly doesn’t put a numbers limit on who is saved.”

Christ DIED for the sins of ALL. I believe that His mental torture in the Garden was so great that drops of blood fell from His body because He knew He was going to suffer and die for those who would still reject His gift of salvation. And for our good fortune He still made the decision to go ahead with His Passion and Death. As for the words of the Consecration they were for the gift of salvation that was to be offered to all.

Ultima Ratio, 3 Dec 2010, 5:48 am
“Regarding all the other changed you mentioned, as well as the almost total confusion that Catholics are faced with today in doctrinal matters: The way to keep from being led astray by the wolfs in sheels clothing currently occupies positions of authority, is to read books, encyclicals, and other documents from prior to 1960. While it is true that the Modernist heretics were alive and well prior to 1960, they remained under the surface. Around 1960 they rose to the surface and have caused great confusion.”

Thank you for recognizing the gist of my post. Yes, through the years I have read some of the works of The Church Fathers, Rahner, Most, Rohr, Hardon, Brown, Ratzinger, Dulles, Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II. Both sides of the story so to speak. Why did the Church stop using the Baltimore Catholicism? Why has Christ’s Church stop Catechizing from the Chancery, Rectory, Pulpit, Classroom and Home? Laziness? Fear? Unbelief? Embarrassment? Lack of Knowledge? Confusion? Or, all of the foregoing reasons?

To Gregory I – You are obviously a well read, learned individual. Why is it so many of you cannot see the forest through the trees?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

“Regarding all the other changed you mentioned, as well as the almost total confusion that Catholics are faced with today in doctrinal matters: The way to keep from being led astray by the wolfs in sheels clothing currently occupies positions of authority, is to read books, encyclicals, and other documents from prior to 1960. While it is true that the Modernist heretics were alive and well prior to 1960, they remained under the surface. Around 1960 they rose to the surface and have caused great confusion.”

Thank you for recognizing the gist of my post. Yes, through the years I have read some of the works of The Church Fathers, Rahner, Most, Rohr, Hardon, Brown, Ratzinger, Dulles, Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II. Both sides of the story so to speak. Why did the Church stop using the Baltimore Catholicism? Why has Christ’s Church stop Catechizing from the Chancery, Rectory, Pulpit, Classroom and Home? Laziness? Fear? Unbelief? Embarrassment? Lack of Knowledge? Confusion? Or, all of the foregoing reasons?

First of all, I’m surprised you were able to decipher that paragraph of mine, which contained so many typos.

Regarding the complete chaos in the Church today, which has caused in large part by the wolfs currently occupying positions of authority, I believe it is a punishment from God for our sins. St. John Eudes said the worst punishment God inflicts on Catholics is giving them bad shepherds. He said this is the surest sign that God is angry with his people.

St. John Eudes: “The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness…”.

With the amount of wolves currently occupying positions within the hierarchy, I would say God is absolutely furious with us. But, as the Bible says, when God allows a temptation, He also allows a way out. Notice that the doctrinal confusion of our time has been accompanied by the information age, whereas virtually anything we would like to know is at our finger tips. There is no question that Catholics today are confused, but everyone has the ability to learn the truth. It takes more effort to keep the faith in our day, but such efforts will be rewarded.

The best thing to do is avoid the writings of the modernist/heretics; and since in our day some of the worst modernists have a reputation of being “conservative”, the safest course is to stick with the writings prior to 1960. At that time, the wolves were persecuted by the hierarchy, and as a result stayed underground. Around 1960, after the election of John XXIII, they surfaced and have been in leadership positions ever since.

I usually recommend the following encyclicals as a must read:

1.) Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI
2.) Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
3.) Libertas, Pope Leo XIII
4.) Our Apostolic Mandate, Pius X
5.) Quanta Cura, Pius IX
6.) Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX

In my opinion, reading – and learning - these encyclicals, which are contra many of the common errors of our day, is absolutely necessary.

 

[Robert_Burns]

In church sunday nov. 28th / 10… The priest said that next year some wording will be changed in the mass. He said that jesues “died for us” next year he said, it will say… He “died for many”…the priest also said we have have a 50/50 chance of being saved. According to catholic teaching in school, we were taught that jesus died for “all” us sinners.
I don’t understand why we only have a 50 / 50 chance of being saved!

Has anyone heard of this yet??

Scripture says “many” because even though the Death of Jesus on the Wood of the Holy Cross defeated all Sin - there are people who either refuse to or simply fail to save their souls. So the actual effect of the Death of Christ is beneficial only for those souls who take advantage of it. Therefore , Although Jesus Death has the Power to Benefit all - only many will . So did he die for us? Depends on us doesnt it. There is no question that Jesus has done everything to save us - but their does remain a question as to whether or not we will go to heaven. Although I cannot speak for your Priest - it seems that he is implying that either we will take up our cross and follow or we wont. Thus the question of Salvation lies with whether we choose to work out our Salvation in fear and Trembling or choose instead to give in to the temptations of this world and serve instead of GOD , mammon.

 

[JonHow]

First of all, I’m surprised you were able to decipher that paragraph of mine, which contained so many typos.

Regarding the complete chaos in the Church today, which has caused in large part by the wolfs currently occupying positions of authority, I believe it is a punishment from God for our sins. St. John Eudes said the worst punishment God inflicts on Catholics is giving them bad shepherds. He said this is the surest sign that God is angry with his people.

St. John Eudes: “The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness…”.

With the amount of wolves currently occupying positions within the hierarchy, I would say God is absolutely furious with us. But, as the Bible says, when God allows a temptation, He also allows a way out. Notice that the doctrinal confusion of our time has been accompanied by the information age, whereas virtually anything we would like to know is at our finger tips. There is no question that Catholics today are confused, but everyone has the ability to learn the truth. It takes more effort to keep the faith in our day, but such efforts will be rewarded.

The best thing to do is avoid the writings of the modernist/heretics; and since in our day some of the worst modernists have a reputation of being “conservative”, the safest course is to stick with the writings prior to 1960. At that time, the wolves were persecuted by the hierarchy, and as a result stayed underground. Around 1960, after the election of John XXIII, they surfaced and have been in leadership positions ever since.

I usually recommend the following encyclicals as a must read:

1.) Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI
2.) Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII
3.) Libertas, Pope Leo XIII
4.) Our Apostolic Mandate, Pius X
5.) Quanta Cura, Pius IX
6.) Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX

In my opinion, reading – and learning - these encyclicals, which are contra many of the common errors of our day, is absolutely necessary.

I know in my heart that your words ring truth. However, there must be something more than reading that can be done for us to regain God’s favor.

I was born in '43, was an altar boy during the '50s, attended strict Catholic schools through high school and was married by a Bishop in 1964. I have been married to the same women since then. We have six children and fourteen grandchildren. Definitely not your typical family and much disliked by both Modernist and Humanist. My wife and I were very active in the church parish till our youngest graduated from high school. None of our children attended Catholic schools although I don’t think it would have made a difference in their lives anyway. We were put out of the CCD High School Program for teaching the Church’s position on adultery (ie remarriage). There is a sad side to this story, though. Only two of our children are what I would call ‘practicing’ Catholics. The others profess to be Christians, for what ever that’s worth. We love them all dearly, pray for their conversions and put our trust in the Father’s love and mercy.

I hate what has and is happening to the Roman Catholic Church that I so much love. My God, my God, why have you foresakened us?