JP II Society Pius X

[pnewton]

Are you saying that Jesus did not speak those words?

It is possible and it does not contradict the the literal interpretation of the Bible on bit. The original language did not use quotation marks to demark exact quotes. That is a modern addition. If Jesus stated he died for all directly, one could still correctly state that Jesus said he died for you, or you, or many. There is no contradiction. But we know there was only one First Eucharist.

 

[saint_rafael]

Even if in the original Greek, there is no quotation marks, those are still the words of Jesus. They have been recorded as he said them. If Jesus said For All, then it would be For All. Jesus said For Many so it is For many.

 

[JReducation]

Even if in the original Greek, there is no quotation marks, those are still the words of Jesus. They have been recorded as he said them. If Jesus said For All, then it would be For All. Jesus said For Many so it is For many.

But San Rafael, they did not always record things the same way. If you go through the Beatitudes you’ll find differences in the order, the wording and the location from one Gospel to another. They refer to the same virtues, therefore they are historically true. But we won’t ever know whether they took place on a mount or on a plain or in what order they were spoken. The evangelists don’t coincide in those details.

It was very typical of writing in those days to focus on the message more than the details.

Also the later evangelists knew that the people had already heard the Word from the Apostles. In their mind, they must have figured that the reader could fill in the blanks, because they had received the oral Tradition that was passed down by the Apostles.

For example, Luke changes people’s names in the infancy narratives. There are various theories as to why he did this, but no one knows for sure why.

Then you have the Gospel of John which is completely different from the Synoptics. He focusses on the Hypostatic Union and uses very few of the miracles and sermons of Jesus. He only uses the ones that support his theology.

There is no errancy in the scriptures. There is a differences in form and sequence. But there is no difference in Truth.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

If you take all four Gospels together, they make up the whole picture. The two evangelists could have recorded two instances of Jesus speaking on the beatitudes. The Sermon was on a plain and on a mount.
Not everything that Jesus did was recorded as John 21:25 says, however he said and did everything that the four Gospels said in lietral history. There are no contradictions.

Luke wrote from the lineage of Mary I believe, and Matthew wrote from the lineage of Joseph.

The Holy Spirit was behind every word of the Gospels. It was dictated by him to the Evangelists. They were not under their own power when writing the Gospels.

 

[JReducation]

If you take all four Gospels together, they make up the whole picture. The two evangelists could have recorded two instances of Jesus speaking on the beatitudes. The Sermon was on a plain and on a mount.
Not everything that Jesus did was recorded as John 21:25 says, however he said and did everything that the four Gospels said in lietral history. There are no contradictions.

Luke wrote from the lineage of Mary I believe, and Matthew wrote from the lineage of Joseph.

The Holy Spirit was behind every word of the Gospels. It was dictated by him to the Evangelists. They were not under their own power when writing the Gospels.

Subscript is mine.

I’m not sure what you mean by lineage of Mary and Joseph.

Luke was a disciple of Paul. Matthew is believed to be an eye-witness.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

Subscript is mine.

I’m not sure what you mean by lineage of Mary and Joseph.

Luke was a disciple of Paul. Matthew is believed to be an eye-witness.

JR

The names given for the ancestors of Jesus in the both Gospels come from Mary and Joseph. One Gospel gives the history of Mary’s relatives and the other Joseph’s relatives.

Luke was a disciple of Paul, but Paul never personally met Jesus or was a witness to the Gospel events.
Sacred Tradition teaches that Luke talked and interviewed Mary for his Gospel.

 

[pnewton]

Even if in the original Greek, there is no quotation marks, those are still the words of Jesus. They have been recorded as he said them. If Jesus said For All, then it would be For All. Jesus said For Many so it is For many.

[Lk 22:20](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

[Like]

Wrong again. This is called slander by the way.

And of coarse you didn’t slander JPII

 

[pnewton]

If you take all four Gospels together, they make up the whole picture. The two evangelists could have recorded two instances of Jesus speaking on the beatitudes. The Sermon was on a plain and on a mount.
Not everything that Jesus did was recorded as John 21:25 says, however he said and did everything that the four Gospels said in lietral history. There are no contradictions.

Luke wrote from the lineage of Mary I believe, and Matthew wrote from the lineage of Joseph.

The Holy Spirit was behind every word of the Gospels. It was dictated by him to the Evangelists. They were not under their own power when writing the Gospels.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

 

[Auntie_M]

I don’t mean to sound sarcastic but this probably does…

Refering to the “for all” and “for many”

From Kindergarten andup, our teachers taught us that

2 TIMES 2 equals 4 but also that 2 PLUS 2 equals 4

This is an example of what we are talking about just because IT is said differently, does NOT make it a whole different issue.
Just as our school systems is there “for all” , there are “many”: that will drop out of school and never graduate. But IT IS STILL THERE FOR ALL…

And as far as the excommunication is concerned…

Luther redefined the Church and did so in terms frighteningly like those used now by the Society and some of its faithful He said the Church was “the congregation of the faithful where the TRUE gospel is preached and the TRUE sacraments administered.”
The Society teaches that they are the True keepers of the faith, where the TRUE gospel is preached andthe TRUE sacraments are administered and this PROVES that they are Catholic.
Saying that the unjust excommunication does not bind one at all.
This is the same thing that the Janseist heretics claimed. “The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty, never are we separated from the Church, even when by wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ and to the Church Herself by Charity.”
The Church condemned this opinion in 1713. It cannot be held by Catholics. Excommunication is excommunication.

TheSociety is giving up part of the faith in order to “save” another part. They insist that the Faith is a whole, no part may be sacrified for Tradition. However, they refuse to accept the Church’s ruling on excommunication, saying that they are not.
( AND THIS IS NOT A MODERNIST RULING)

If anyone preaches to you that the Church is found anywhere else than in the Pope and those visibly united to him, then know him as a heretic and do not believe him. He is one of those whom Christ warns us of, “who say that He is to be found in the desert and someplace else”. NO, He will be found where He always has been …gathered around Peter.

 

[Auntie_M]

Even if in the original Greek, there is no quotation marks, those are still the words of Jesus. They have been recorded as he said them. If Jesus said For All, then it would be For All. Jesus said For Many so it is For many.

Then I am sorry for all the rest of us, Cause when Jesus said “FOR YOU”, He had to mean the “YOU” He was speaking to at that time…For as often as “YOU” eat this bread and drink this blood…He left out all the rest of civilization then and now…OH MY

The “preaching” that JPII was in error by reforming the mass, that he could not do this by the “Quo Primum” issued in 1570 by Pope Pius V is simply NOT true…

By this, he forbade alterations by other authorities, ecclesiastical, civil or by private individuals. But obviously not by himself or by his successors, whose authority as Popes were equal to his own. He himself, altered the Missal when, after the victory of Lepanto in the following year, he added to it the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. In1585, Pope Sixtus V restored the feast of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary, which Pope Pius V has removed from the missal. After 34 years, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years after that.

But because JPII did this, he is a heretic??? Please explain to me how???

If we want to preserve true “Tradition”, I guess we tear down all the churches and have the sermon as Jesus did it…ON THE MOUNT>>>>>OUT IN THE OPEN FIELDS:shrug:

 

[stmaria]

The case is closed on ‘for many’
The council of Trent said that it was **guided by the Holy Spirit **in joining together 'for you and for many’ Therefore it is infallible. The Latin ‘pro multis’ can only be translated as ‘for many’
The Vatican has admitted that the vernacular translation is WRONG.

Pro multis means “for many,” Vatican rules
Vatican, Nov. 18, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as “for many” in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

Case closed!

 

[Auntie_M]

The case is closed on ‘for many’
The council of Trent said that it was **guided by the Holy Spirit **in joining together 'for you and for many’ Therefore it is infallible. The Latin ‘pro multis’ can only be translated as ‘for many’
The Vatican has admitted that the vernacular translation is WRONG.

Pro multis means “for many,” Vatican rules
Vatican, Nov. 18, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as “for many” in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

Case closed!

I am so sorry, I didn’t hear that “news” program. But it is interesting to note that it is rendered “for many” in all **NEW **translations.

Does that mean the Vatican has CHANGED something again. It does state in my CCC, and I quote…Article 605 page 156…" At the end of the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes NO ONE: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came " to give his life as a ransom for many""; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.

The Church, following the APOSTLES, teaches that CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION; “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human for whom Christ did not suffer.”

 

[pnewton]

The case is closed on ‘for many’
The council of Trent said that it was **guided by the Holy Spirit **in joining together 'for you and for many’ Therefore it is infallible. The Latin ‘pro multis’ can only be translated as ‘for many’
The Vatican has admitted that the vernacular translation is WRONG.

Not everything a pope says is infallible. “Guided by the Holy Spirit” is not the formula for infallibility. But let’s assume that is what Jesus said and Luke just got it wrong, are you stating that “for many” is what Jesus said at the institution of the Eucharist? Or are you stating that “for many” should be the translation in the Eucharistic Prayer? The reason I ask is that the first is an opinion or delaration on scripture interpretation; the latter a matter of discipline.

I will be glad when the whole issue is resolved and we correct the translation. I think it is much ado about nothing. Yes, I think we will return to the (correct) “for many” formula.

 

[saint_rafael]

I am so sorry, I didn’t hear that “news” program. But it is interesting to note that it is rendered “for many” in all **NEW **translations.

Does that mean the Vatican has CHANGED something again. It does state in my CCC, and I quote…Article 605 page 156…" At the end of the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes NO ONE: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came " to give his life as a ransom for many""; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.

The Church, following the APOSTLES, teaches that CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION; “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human for whom Christ did not suffer.”

It is not just the new translations. The Douay-Rheims, which is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate has For Many.

The question is what did Jesus say at the Last Supper? It can only be the exact words of Jesus at the Last Supper that can be used for the Mass. Jesus said For You and For Many.

We know that Jesus died For All, But Jesus Says For Many at the Last Supper because he was talking about those who RESPONDED and ACCEPTED his redemption.

Jesus did not save us on the cross. He redeemed us. He gave ALL men a chance to be saved through his death. We are all redeemed, but we are not all saved. This is why Jesus said For Many.

 

[pnewton]

The Church, following the APOSTLES, teaches that CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION; “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human for whom Christ did not suffer.”

The controversy is not about whether Christ died for all or many. The above quote from Trent points out that both are true. It is specifically about what words should be used in the prayers. Many Traditionalists believe that the change was deliberate to be more inclusive at communion. It sould be seen that traditionalists who make a big deal out of this want to be elitists. I just think it is an error in translation that needs correcting. Both are true (for all; for many), but you can’t use both. Why not use the most biblical and traditional form?

 

[JReducation]

When I see threads like these I am always concerned about one thing and that his holiness. If the translation from the Latin to the English is incorrect, fine. It will be corrected in the next edition of the Sacramentary.

However, when we go on the attack and condemn people, especially popes, without the authority to do so, we are putting ourselves in greater spiritual danger than using an incorrect translation. In the end, the incorrect translation does not change the consecration. The consecration is still licit and valid.

To condemn others and pass judgement on their intention and their fidelity to the faith has always been reserved for ecclesiastical authority, not for the laity. They laity may respectfully ask questions for the sake of understanding and clarification, even for the sake of edification. The laity has never received the right to make authoritative judgements or pronouncements on Church teachings or individuals.

That being said, the end goal of our life is Eternity. Eternity with God is achieved not through bickering over a translation. The saints achieved Eternity through:

1. Faith in God
2. Communion with the Church
3. Deep life of prayer
4. Conversion of manners
5. The sacraments
6. Works of mercy
7. Community life
8. Heroic practice of virtue
9. Doing small things with great love
10. Detachment from everything that interfered with their journey to God

When we take on subjects such as the one that the OP has presented, we must look at it through the eyes of the saints and ask ourselves what in this entire issue can I use to reach Eternity? As we come closer to being Christ-like we draw others into the same mystery and spiritual union. The debate does little to draw anyone into the spiritual union of the soul with Divinity.

JR

 

[Auntie_M]

Does anyone really believe that the whole controversity of the new or old will be resolved with the “for many” instead of the “for all”

I for one, do not, there are too many other issues.

I was led to the Catholic Faith…not to the OLD mass…not to the NEW mass…not to the “for many” or the “for all” …Not the Gregorian chant… …“rock band” type of music.

But to the CATHOLIC faith. I grew up Protestant, not knowing what the Catholic faith was all about. But I certainly found out what the protestant faith was about…“I don’t like this so I’m going to go to all the way to the top, the head, and get this straightened out”…or"I don’t agree with that, so I’m just going to change churches."
“I know better than that Pastor, HE is NOT preaching Bible”
“We have to go by the Bible” was this and more, I heard while in the prostestant faith.

Now, sadly, I’m hearing it in the Catholic Church. Why have a Pope when there are a few out there that are going to “be right” no matter what the costs. I’m sorry, but that is not even a Christian attitude must less a Catholic one.

I learned that the Catholic Church was all about “family”, about “unity”. Maybe I heard or learned from the wrong people.
If I had “just studied the Catholic” faith instead of being LED, I would no doubt consider finding another religion right now.

Go ahead, Traditionlist, get your points across and all that you want changed. It may just end up truly as you wish. Afterall, It is your belief that you are the only True Catholics left. Maybe that is why this “for many” is so important to them. I don’t know. But, a very good saying is…“Better be careful what you wish for or pray for, it just might come true.”

How would you feel if you got it all changed back the way you think it should be and then, viola, Jesus comes back. Would He be Proud of you or ashamed?

 

[stmaria]

=pnewton;3639649]Not everything a pope says is infallible. “Guided by the Holy Spirit” is not the formula for infallibility.

The Council of Trent said they were guided by the Holy Spirit and that is why they joined together the scriptures of Luke and John. Are you saying they are mistaken and they were not guided by the Holy Spirit? Martin Luther removed ‘for many’ in his formula of consecration and he used Luke’s words ‘for you’ That is probably why they invoked the Holy Spirit to settle the issue.

But let’s assume that is what Jesus said and Luke just got it wrong, are you stating that “for many” is what Jesus said at the institution of the Eucharist? Or are you stating that “for many” should be the translation in the Eucharistic Prayer? The reason I ask is that the first is an opinion or delaration on scripture interpretation; the latter a matter of discipline

.

“Pro Multis” means ‘for many’ there is no way around that. To say it means ‘for all’ was, in my opinion, translated that way for the concept of universal salvation.

The same thing was done in the biblical translation of 'Peace on earth good will to men". The correct translation is 'Peace on earth to men of good will" A huge difference, for not all will have peace but only those of good will.

 

[pnewton]

The Council of Trent said they were guided by the Holy Spirit and that is why they joined together the scriptures of Luke and John.

I just do not know what it is you are saying is infallible. What does “join together” mean? It is not that Luke was rewritten. I guess it could be an infallible interpretation of the verse in Luke so that it is not literal.