T
Timothysis
Guest
Are you saying that the sacrifice of the Mass is heretical if the words “for all” are used?
- Status
G
Gregory_I
Guest
That’s what SSPX says.
P
ProVobis
Guest
They say “pro multis” in their Masses, not “for all” or “for many” 
T
Timothysis
Guest
Then does anyone realize the implication of such a statement?
How can the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the source and summit of true Christian worship, be a valid act, yet at the same time be heretical?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I wouldn’t say the Sacrifice of the Mass itself is heretical. What would be heretical is the specific prayer within the Mass (the words of consecration, no less). But rather than me saying if it is, or is not, heretical, I’ll let you decide. Here’s four points to consider.
1.) According to what the Church teaches, the words pro multis (which mean for many) refer specifically to the elect - those who will be saved. As the Catechism of Trent taught: “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”.
2.) Now, if these words, which refer only to the elect, are mistranslated as “for all” it implies that all will be saved.
3.) The idea that all men will be saved was formally condemned by Pope Pius II (actually he condemned the proposition that all Christians would be saved, which is even more narrow than all men).
4.) If the words pro multis refer only to the elect; and if the words pro multis are mistranslated as for all, does this incorrect translation imply the heresy of universal salvation? Please answer yes or no and provide explain how you arrived at the answer.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
You ought to read the prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success. The apparition took place about 400 years ago, and speaks of our time specifically. The Blessed Mother explained in detail what would take place in our day. She specifically speaks of “the second half of the 20th century”. The apparition was approved by the Bishop almost immediately (due to a particular miracle), and there has been a continuous devotion for almost 400 years. Due to the length of time the continual devotion has existed, the apparition received an extremely rare additional Papal approval by John Paul II. You can read about the miracles associated with this apparition, as well as the prophecies of our times, at the links below. But keep in mind that what we are enduring now will end soon, and then the Church will experience an almost unbelievable restoration. Our times have been prophecied by MANY saints; and these same saints have all spoke of the great restoration that is just ahead. We may have to endure a physical chastisement first (such as WWIII), but it will be followed by an amazing restoration of all things in Christ.
Here’s a few links to read about Our Lady of Good Success: A google search will pull up many more websites if you are interested.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Good_Success
traditioninaction.org/OLGS/A001olgs%20fat.htm
T
Timothysis
Guest
“The Council of Trent recognized that the words “For you and for many” are not found in that form in the New Testament. Those words were “joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 226). The Council of Trent Catechism thus recognizes that it is the Church who determines what the proper form of a sacrament must be (Whitehead, 106). There is no hint that the Catechism was mandating that those precise words “For you and for many” be used for all time. In fact, during the institution of the original Eucharist itself, when Jesus consecrated the first Eucharist, we have different formulas in scripture. Although the gospels of Mark and Matthew have Jesus using the formula “for many” (although not “For you and for many” as the Tridentine rite has it), Luke and Paul do not use the phrase ‘for many’ at all.”
"A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. (Whitehead, 109, Dom Leclerq, Dictionnaire d’Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie (Col. 730-750). Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many’ but other words of the "Tridentine’ form (Such as Mystery of Faith) of the consecration are not to be found."
*
“The Catholic Church has never been limited to the Roman rite. It recognizes nine rites, which has its own right and proper way of doing things, including the celebration of the Eucharist, as Atwatter’s Catholic Dictionary points out before Vatican II (Latin, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopic, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian rites):
The Mass of St. Hippolytus, which dates from the 3rd century, does not use the phrase for many, but “This is my body, which is broken for you”, and “This is my Blood which is shed for you”. The following recognized Oriental Liturgies do not include “for many” in the consecration of the chalice: Catholic Ethiopian Rite, “Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins.” (From King, Archdale A., Rites of Eastern Christendom, Catholic Book Agency, Rome, 1947. Vol. 1, pp. 641-642). The same goes with the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites. Although most Eastern rites do presently use the phrase ‘for many’, in the ancient Eucharistic prayers many did not use that phrase. All of these Eucharistic prayers have been recognized by the Catholic Church.*”
*
"Finally a few examples that Whitehead provides of Eucharistic prayers dating back to the 7th century in books published by the Holy See include the Anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) of the Lord Jesus Christ: (107)
“And as often as ye do this, make memorial of Me. And likewise also the cup, putting wine into it, giving thanks, blessing (three signings of the cross) and sanctifying, Thou gavest unto them. Truly, This is Thy Blood which was shed for our sins.”
The Anaphora of the Evangelist John also does not use the ‘for many’ formula.
Thus, the formulas that do not include “for many” are historic, and have long been recognized by the Catholic Church. The fact that the phrase is not included in the English translation of the Latin formula is thus not an innovation of Pauline Rite Mass."*
matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20%E2%80%9CFor%20All%E2%80%9D%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20%E2%80%9CPro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis%E2%80%9D?
S
spencer2
Guest
Ultima Ratio, I am curious to who you’re referring to “the wolves” in authority?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
My first comment is that the words in question (pro multis - “for many”) are included in the Novus Ordo Mass. The issue is that these words have been mistranslated into the vernacular.
What the article you posted dealt with is an entirely different question. We are not discussing if the words for many must, of necessity, be included; neither are we discussing if excluding the words for many is heretics, or if it invalidates the consecration. The question at hand is this: If the words are included; and if they are purposefully mistranslated as “for all” does this not imply universal salvation. Once again the words in question refer specifically to the elect - those who will be saved. If the words “for many”, which refer specifically to the elect, are mistranslated into another language as “for all”, does this imply universal salvation? That’s the question being asked.
And let’s not forget: Rome has already come out and admitted that the translation is erroneous. Five years ago Rome commended the Bishops to have the problem corrected within two years (that is three years ago for the mathmatically challenged), and the bishop are still dragging their feet.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I don’t want to mention any names, but I will say this:
Pope Pius IX said that Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Catholic Church. He said he feared them more than the Commune of Paris. He made 40 public statements about the dangers of Liberal Catholics.
Now, Liberalism, as it was understood then, is a little different than it is understood today. The principles of Liberalism are based on a false idea of liberty. In reality, it is license under the name of “liberty”. Liberal Catholics are those who sought to join together the philosophy of Liberalism (the principles of the French Revolution) with Catholicism. They sought to unite two sets of principles that are irreconcilable. Since we are all saturated in this false liberty today, we must clear up our thinking on this point. The best place to start is the encyclical Libertas of Pope Leo XIII. This encyclical explains the true nature of human liberty contra the false notion of human liberty. Today, generally speaking, both conservatives and Liberals have embraced the errors of Liberalism; and what we call Liberal today, is actually farther down the road of error. The error moves father to the left with each passing year. What was considered liberal a generation ago, is now accepted by the conservatives.
I would refer to any member of the hierarchy is promotes Liberal Catholicism as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Another group I would include as being wolves are the Modernists. Pius X wrote a long and very deep encyclical dealing with this error. He said that the promoters of this error were within the Church - not only within the laity, but also within the clergy. He referred to them as the enemies within, and he called the error “thy synthesis of all heresies”. He explained that this error directly attacked the faith at its deepest fibers (which is why there is so much doctrinal confusion today).
Now, our current hierarchy is saturated with promoters of both Liberalism and Modernism. Their number is legion and they are in the highest positions within the Church. These are the wolves I was referring to.
I don’t think it is proper to name names. But it must be said, that if we are going to keep the faith today, we must become very familiar with these errors so that we can spot them and avoid them. We also must approach the encyclicals that condemn these errors with great docility of mind, and thereby allow them to reform our thinking, if indeed it has been infected by these errors - and in all likelihood, we have all be infected to one degree or another. The encyclical on Modernism is titled Pascendi. The document is very deep and certainly not easy reading. Before reading it, you should read this brief article that summarized the error. The article is Modernism in a Nutshell.
There’s no reason for the laity to fight with each other and become divided. That is not what God desires. What is necessary is to help each other keep the faith during this great crisis. And it is the faith that is under attack. Many Catholics are completely confused, and this it is due, in large part, to both errors mentioned above.
C
Carlan
Guest
S
spencer2
Guest
I read the modernist article and it does sound sedevacanist to me. Would you consider yourself a sed?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Thank you for finally being the one to address this seriously.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
The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was and is universal because it was done by a divine being…Jesus, true God and true man.
Whether we choose to allow His grace to work in us is another thing.
The gift is there - the sacrifice was done - the time of mercy is now.
[/quote]
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
The person who wrote the article is the editor of Catholic Family News. He’s not a Sedevacantist, and I’m not one either.
S
spencer2
Guest
If John V is not a sed why did he refer to the pope as a conservative modernist?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
He wrote the article in 2003, before Ratzinger was elected Pope.
J
johnthebaptist1
Guest
Frist of all, JESUS, did died for us, like you said.
Second, We all can be saved, if we truly ammened our ways,but what the priest is saying,is that,many well want to be saved but only a few well enter the Kindom of Heavan.Meaning that if you remain, FAITHFUL,tell the end,JESUS well not forget you, but
some people are falling away from the Church,those are the ones we must pray for. And,
no I didn,t hear of any changing of the words, that you mention.
GOD BLESS :)
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Jesus Died for all. But not all receive his grace. But many do. THese many, are who Christ is referring to “It will be shed for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven”
The emphasis is on those who are the elect, who will come to know Christ and who will receive that grace he offers.
The emphasis is on those who are the elect, who will come to know Christ and who will receive that grace he offers.
- Status