Died for "MANY" or for "ALL" controversy

[ProVobis]

Earlier in this thread I asked if the translation “for the many” might be appropriate for pro multis. While I recognize this forum for the type of source it is, the general feel was that it was not. Now in hindsight, I realize independently that my proposal had another problem.

The English expression “the many” is itself idiomatic. This would not likely be translated into any derivative of “many” in another language; rather it would be rendered as something akin to “masses” or (my best guess) something akin to a plural form of the French on. So I recognize that my original question was likely in the negative.

Not necessarily. In Latin there is still at least another plural ablative pluribus which could also mean “many” or “the many” (implying perhaps a specific group rather than random group) or even “more than many.” I imagine there are subtle differences between pluribus and multis but we’ll not know that by studying only the simple translation.

 

[corsair]

There is no controversy. Its been settled. Read the new Roman Missal. Its “for many”.
Which is what EF Mass has said for centuries.

 

[Evan]

Don’t blame ICEL for the controversy, it is also going on in French German Spanish, etc. Here what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book “God is Near Us”

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

on this same question in German. Basically he is saying both translations are correct.

It’s a good book, you ought to read it.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what the D-R Bible says:

St. Matthew:

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

St. Mark:

23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

and St. Luke:

20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Oddly enough, in this translation, St. Luke does not even say “many”; just “you.”

 

[benedictgal]

Don’t blame ICEL for the controversy, it is also going on in French German Spanish, etc. Here what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book “God is Near Us”

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

on this same question in German. Basically he is saying both translations are correct.

It’s a good book, you ought to read it.

Although, as Pope Benedict XVI, he promulgated the usage of the phrase “for many”. The CDWDS would not have issued its statement without papal approval.

 

[Evan]

Although, as Pope Benedict XVI, he promulgated the usage of the phrase “for many”. The CDWDS would not have issued its statement without papal approval.

Correct. In his book he was of the opinion that we had used ‘for all’ for a long enough time, we should use ‘for many’ so each generation will here it both ways. As both are correct and in modern languages, we don’t have the wider understanding that ‘pro multis’ has.

Perhaps in 50 years, they will change it back. If they are both right, neither is wrong.

 

[TMC]

Don’t blame ICEL for the controversy, it is also going on in French German Spanish, etc. Here what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book “God is Near Us”

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

on this same question in German. Basically he is saying both translations are correct.

It’s a good book, you ought to read it.

Although, as Pope Benedict XVI, he promulgated the usage of the phrase “for many”. The CDWDS would not have issued its statement without papal approval.

Here is the conclusion Cardinal Ratzinger arrives at in the referenced book:

What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many”, are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation “for all” here and, thus, to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation re- mains in any case indispensable. [10] There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.

 

[Evan]

Correct. In his book he was of the opinion that we had used ‘for all’ for a long enough time, we should use ‘for many’ so each generation will here it both ways. As both are correct and in modern languages, we don’t have the wider understanding that ‘pro multis’ has.

I’m so glad that TMC had the book available. I was going from memory. I guess I mis-remembered. If I knew it all, I wouldn’t need to read the opinions on these fora.

 

[to_seek]

When Christ died on the Cross He died so that ALL might have access to salvation thru Him. Everything else is splitting hairs, whatever language it is written in. The question is why the Church would change the word all to many.?That sets up a definite departure from what is generally accepted and believed in christian circles. Why the need for constant changes since Vatican 2, in liturgy if it was correct the first time?Is there something else behind this? To seek.

 

[Ockham]

You’re welcome all; and I think this issue is much more an excuse for, than a cause of, any schism. The schismatics don’t like the Mass of Paul VI in English, in Latin, in better English, in Spanish, in a box, with a fox, you name it.

This thread’s very existence gives credence to the so-called schismatics objection to the venacular. Come to think of it, many threads in this forum show what can happen when the Mass is subject to alteration.

“A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.” Matthew 13:57

 

[japhy]

When Christ died on the Cross He died so that ALL might have access to salvation thru Him.

Yes, He died so that all might have salvation through Him, but not all will.

It’s proper to say that Christ shed His blood “for all, so that sins may be forgiven”, and it’s also proper to say that Christ shed His blood “for many, for the forgiveness of sins”. In other words, the potentiality is for all, but the actuality is only for many.

The question is why the Church would change the word all to many? That sets up a definite departure from what is generally accepted and believed in christian circles.

First of all, the Church did not change “all” to “many”. The Church simply allowed (for whatever reason…) the Latin word pro multis to be mistranslated in English as “for all”. Jesus Christ Himself said “for many”!

Why the need for constant changes since Vatican 2, in liturgy if it was correct the first time? Is there something else behind this?

1. That’s a topic for a whole other thread!
2. The English translation we’ve been using has not been entirely correct.

 

[ProVobis]

Come to think of it, many threads in this forum show what can happen when the Mass is subject to alteration.

Well, as the Italians say, “traduttore, traditore” (translator, traitor).

 

[runningdude]

First of all, the Church did not change “all” to “many”. The Church simply allowed (for whatever reason…) the Latin word pro multis to be mistranslated in English as “for all”. Jesus Christ Himself said “for many”!

Its can simply be called a mistranslation. The Latin connotations of “for many”, might be more accurately reflected by the English connotations of “for all”. In any case, modern English will never catch all the nuance of the original languages, so it is up to the Church to continually preach the truth to each successive generation. As our Pope said before his papacy, both “for many” and “for all” are accurate with proper explanation.

 

[lamjmj]

If you say all you include the angles, Jesus did not die for the angles.

 

[japhy]

If you say all you include the angles, Jesus did not die for the angles.

Not even the right ones.

 

[Evan]

If you say all you include the angles, Jesus did not die for the angles.

He did not die for the dolphins either. (except those in the NFL)

 

[crazzeto]

I think some people are taking “FOR ALL” a little too far out of context. It doesn’t mean for all creation seen and unseen. It means for all mankind. All arguments should be kept in this context.

 

[MikeDunphy]

The Latin connotations of “for many”, might be more accurately reflected by the English connotations of “for all”.

I’ve seen this argument before,
and elsewhere the argument that *many *and *all *are distinct words in English and Latin,
but that the Greek word for *many *has the connotation of all,
and yet elsewhere the argument that *many *and *all *are distinct words in English, Latin and Greek,
but that the Aramaic word or the Hebrew word for *many *has the connotation of all,
but the fact is, in all five languages, *many *and *all *are distinct words.

Thank God that after 40+ years of careless disregard for the word our Lord spoke, the words of consecration are finally going to be correctly translated again, by order of the Pope.

 

[Ockham]

Thank God that after 40+ years of careless disregard for the word our Lord spoke, the words of consecration are finally going to be correctly translated again, by order of the Pope.

Amen.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

Perhaps I’ve overlooked it in reading the previous posts, so I will ask what consideration is given to St John in 1 John V2:2:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

While the Greek, including the Textus Receptus says, “the whole world” the word for world is kosmos (Strongs 2889) when I looked it up in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT V3 pg 867) I was surprised to see there were 28 pages covering this one word. The etymology said the first use of the word was a technical military term for the placement, disposition and mission of a host (army). Then the TDNT walked through the changes of the word until it became a key word (“one of the most important words in Greek language and [Christian] thinking…”) and a very critical word in all of God’s creation, the creation, natural order of things, their devine purpose, that which gives life, motion and purpose to all things.

Hope this helps.