Eucharist -- shed for all or for many?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KnightIHSV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KnightIHSV

Guest
I was at Mass this morning and I heard the priest say at the consecration that Christ’s blood was shed “for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins”. Can anyone explain the deeper theological import of “many” as opposed to “all”?

I note that Matthew 26:28 (RSV) states that Christ said “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”, which means the priest’s consecration aligned with Christ’s words in Scripture.

It makes me wonder whether this change reflects any change in the Catholic position on the question of election, whereby Christ’s blood was only shed for His elect.

Thanks to anyone who can assist, as always.

God bless all CAF members!

Graham
 
“For all” was a mistranslation of the Latin. Throughout the Church, in both West and East, “for many” is used. So the Church hasn’t changed its position on anything theologically. It’s simply bringing the Ordinary Form English translation back into line.

Our Lord did die on the Cross to redeem all mankind, however, not all will be saved.
 
“For all” was a mistranslation of the Latin. Throughout the Church, in both West and East, “for many” is used. So the Church hasn’t changed its position on anything theologically. It’s simply bringing the Ordinary Form English translation back into line.

Our Lord did die on the Cross to redeem all mankind, however, not all will be saved.
If you look at some newer Catholic biblical translations in the Gospels it says (ALL) instead of Many.

My good ole trusted Douay Rheims says many not all. I’m happy the new liturgical translation will bring it back to the original.
 
If you look at some newer Catholic biblical translations in the Gospels it says (ALL) instead of Many.
Most so-called “Catholic” translations are Protestant that have been “Catholicised”. Nothing wrong with a good Douay-Rheims.
 
“For all” was a mistranslation of the Vulgate. I’ve heard the quote “for many” explained thus:

Christ did indeed shed His blood for all of mankind, but there are those who would not respond to His sacrifice with faith. Fortunately, “many” have, and “many” do, and “many” will in the future. Hence the phrase “for many.” Salvation is for all, but only some people take advantage of the offer. The priest leading the Bible study I went to broke it down in very earthy terms:

He said, “The local auto dealership is offering a discount on cars that they sell over the next month. The discount is available to all. However, if you don’t buy a car, you don’t get a discount. The dealership isn’t going to send sales people out to make you buy a car. So the discount is really just for those who buy a car, not ‘for all.’ Naturally, the dealership would like everyone to buy a car, but that isn’t going to happen. But ‘many’ people might buy a car, so the discount is then ‘for many.’”

That seemed to make a lot of sense to me!
 
Even though that technically is more accurate, it is not the priest’s place to change the words to the Mass. The new translation will go into effect on November 27th- I don’t think they are supposed to start using it before then.

The Latin phrase in question is “pro multis.” That translates as “for many.” That is not intended to be exclusive of anyone. It just means “for a lot of people.” “A lot of people” could mean “all,” it’s just not as specific.
 
If you look at some newer Catholic biblical translations in the Gospels it says (ALL) instead of Many.
:eek:

But I’m not surprised. Over the last 40 years, there have been many defenders of the “for all” argument. As I’ve often stated, there are many different ways of translating and translators in my opinion have much too much freedom. It’s not exactly codified anywhere that the only English translation of “multis” is “many” so until you mandate the Latin, you will continue to get debates on what’s proper for the liturgy.
 
Even though that technically is more accurate, it is not the priest’s place to change the words to the Mass. The new translation will go into effect on November 27th- I don’t think they are supposed to start using it before then.
The bishops in the UK told the priests to start introducing the revision in September, it will only become official on the First Sunday of Advent. Not sure about the U.S., but I’m sure it’s the same principle.
The Latin phrase in question is “pro multis.” That translates as “for many.” That is not intended to be exclusive of anyone. It just means “for a lot of people.” “A lot of people” could mean “all,” it’s just not as specific.
‘All’ means ‘all’, ‘many’ means ‘many’.
 
“For all” was a mistranslation of the Latin. Throughout the Church, in both West and East, “for many” is used. So the Church hasn’t changed its position on anything theologically. It’s simply bringing the Ordinary Form English translation back into line.

Our Lord did die on the Cross to redeem all mankind, however, not all will be saved.
This is a good explanation. I just want to add that ‘for many’ stresses *our choice *in the matter. We can choose or reject Christ and he knew that not all will accept his sacrifice, that’s why he phrased it that way.
 
The translation in the Divine Liturgy (Eastern rite) has always been “for many”.

FWIW “many” doesn’t exclude the possibility of “all”. It’s just a different way of saying “for a whole heckuva lot of people”! 🙂
 
According to Scriptures, few people will see Heaven (which is what “for all” vs “for many” is about, salvation).
 
If you look at some newer Catholic biblical translations in the Gospels it says (ALL) instead of Many.
Which ones?

I haven’t found a single English translation of Matt 26:28 that uses “for all” instead of “for many”.
 
It seems that the most controversial change in the minds of many people (Catholic or not) is that of the word “all” to the word “many.” The old translation stated that Christ’s Blood was shed “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” This is an accurate theological statement: Christ is “the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) But it was not so accurate a translation of the Latin. So now, when the priest says “for you and for many,” some might wonder if the Church is denying that Christ died for everyone. If we know that Christ died for all, how can we say that He poured out His Blood only for many? To address this issue properly, we need to examine the Latin and Scripture more closely.

First, the Latin word in the prayer is multis, which means “many” and not “all.” (The word omnibus means “all,” but that word has never been used for the Consecration of the wine in the Roman Rite.) Second, you will find that Jesus used the word “many” and not the word “all” in the Gospel: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt. 26:28) There is not one major English translation of the Bible that uses the word “all” in this verse. The priest is simply saying what Jesus said.

Why did Jesus use the word “many” on this occasion? To answer that, we need to consider Who Jesus is, and how He made His identity known to the people around Him. All four evangelists connect John the Baptist with the voice crying out in Isaiah 40:3, and Isaiah 40 marks the beginning of the “book of consolation,” those prophecies in Isaiah that deal with the relief and consolation that God would send Israel in their time of persecution and exile. A primary agent of this consolation is the “Suffering Servant,” of whom Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is a clear prophecy. At the end of this prophecy, God speaks of His servant in these words:
By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. … He poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:11-12)
Jesus was surely thinking of this prophecy, and how He was fulfilling it, when He spoke to His Apostles about the pouring out of His blood “for many.” So while Jesus died for all, on this particular occasion He used the word “many.” The reason can perhaps be explained by St. Paul in a passage where he uses the expression “for all.”
For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Cor. 5:14-15)
While Christ died for all, salvation is not brought about without our individual willing participation. By dying for all of us, Christ has presented us with the potential to live no longer for ourselves but for Him, but this is not automatically guaranteed for everyone. We can truthfully say (as the old translation did) that the Blood of Christ was shed for all, so that sins may be forgiven. But not all will have their sins forgiven, and so we can also say truthfully (as the new translation does) that His Blood was poured out for many for the forgiveness of (their) sins. It is with this in mind that the Church uses “for many” and not “for all.” In fact, the Roman Catechism from the sixteenth century explained the use of pro multis instead of pro omnibus in just that way:
Looking to the efficacy of the passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages, which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race. … With great propriety therefore, were the words, for all, omitted, because here the fruit of the passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did his passion bring the fruit of salvation. (p. 155)

From Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest (chapter 6)​
 
In addition to my post above, I’d say we shouldn’t be comparing “for many” vs. “for all”, but rather “for many” with the immediately preceding “for you”.

The point is that Jesus did not just shed His blood for those disciples whom He invited to the Last Supper (“for you”); rather, He was telling them His blood was shed not just for them (nor just for us), but indeed for many more.
 
I was made to understand it was the translation from the Latin which is now translated from 'all" to “the many”. The Latin word sounds like the word “mulitude” so why not use that word. I was told the French use the French word for multitude.

Christ’s intention was to offer Himself up for the sins of all mankind. However, not all accept Him nor His sacrifice because man still has free will.
 
The Latin word sounds like the word “mulitude” so why not use that word. I was told the French use the French word for multitude.
There were many ways “pro multis” could have been translated. “For the multitude” is one. “For the many” is one too. I think “for many” was decided upon because that’s how English Bibles translate the Greek of Matthew 26:28 (περὶ πολλῶν, “peri pollon”) which is the source of the Latin “pro multis”.

It should be noted, though, that the Greek πολλῶν (“pollon”) is where we get the expression “hoi polloi” (οἱ πολλοί), which means “the many, the multitude, the (unwashed) masses”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top