JP II Society Pius X

[stmaria]

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.

The gospel of Luke says 'which will be shed for you" the Gospel of Matthew says ’ which will be shed **for many". **
Martin Luther removed “for many” and went with the Gospel of Luke. He also removed ’ The Mystery of Faith" The Church at that time was using “for you and for many”. and the “Mystery of Faith” Here , the Catechism of Trent explains why.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
……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…… 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"

So therefore, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Fathers of Trent joined the two Gospels narratives together. So therfore to use the wrong translation and say ‘for all’ is simply wrong. Christ never said ‘for all’. The Latin text of the Ordinary form of the Mass still says ‘for many’ it is the translation that is wrong.

 

[Jeanette_L]

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

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?

 

[JReducation]

The gospel of Luke says 'which will be shed for you" the Gospel of Matthew says ’ which will be shed **for many". **
Martin Luther removed “for many” and went with the Gospel of Luke. He also removed ’ The Mystery of Faith" The Church at that time was using “for you and for many”. and the “Mystery of Faith” Here , the Catechism of Trent explains why.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
……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…… 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"

So therefore, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Fathers of Trent joined the two Gospels narratives together. So therfore to use the wrong translation and say ‘for all’ is simply wrong. Christ never said ‘for all’. The Latin text of the Ordinary form of the Mass still says ‘for many’ it is the translation that is wrong.

Just a question. Why are you using the Catechism of Trent instead of the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has the most current interpretations not only to Trent, but to every council, patristic document and encyclical written up to 2007?

JR

 

[stmaria]

Just a question. Why are you using the Catechism of Trent instead of the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has the most current interpretations not only to Trent, but to every council, patristic document and encyclical written up to 2007?

JR

Does the current Catechism explain why ‘for you and for many’ was joined together? That is the topic I am addressing.

 

[Auntie_M]

Does the current Catechism explain why ‘for you and for many’ was joined together? That is the topic I am addressing.

As a matter of Fact IT DOES

As I have already written, but evidently you have not read…

Article 605, Page 156 CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION…

"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 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 the Christ died for ALL men WITHOUT exception; “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”

AND that would even include Judas…get the picture

 

[Auntie_M]

To the original poster, you can’t win this arguement.

These ultra-traditionalists are not going to come around nothing short of a miracle. I should know I used to be one.

Dizzy Dave…

Please, Please tell us what brought you around…(and may God bless you!)

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Prayer for unity, **UT UNUM SINT, (THAT THEY MAY BE ONE), **Is the best way.
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

Just a question. Why are you using the Catechism of Trent instead of the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has the most current interpretations not only to Trent, but to every council, patristic document and encyclical written up to 2007?
JR

A Catechism is not infallible. Catechisms are summaries and instructions of the Catholic faith. The teachings they talk about SHOULD be infallible.

The Problem with the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it mixes infallible teaching with documents and teaching that is not infallible.
It mixes Magisterial teaching with documents of Vatican II. The documents of VII are not infallible, so they could mislead Catholics.
Older Catechisms like Trent and Baltimore are direct and every word is Magisterial teaching.

 

[saint_rafael]

For all those who are arguing over For Many and For All, the debate is pointless. The Church has already decided that the phrase is For Many as the Church has always used.

All future translations of Missals will use For Many.

Tradition and the truth won.

Cardinal Arinze and the Vatican have already decided this:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

 

[Joe17]

Saint Rafael,

Isn't it interesting that a whole new Good Friday prayer can be written up and inserted with barely a month to spare before GF, but for many cannot be "pencilled in" over for all in the sacramenties used in the Novus Ordo(I have seen missals with St Joseph inserted because, I suppose money for a new missal was not available)?  It is a joke.  Don't fall for it.  For 40 yrs, it was said with for all/all men with the okay of Rome.  Why didn't Benedict XVI use it(for many) when he recently visited the US?  I don't mean to be harsh with you, but just want to give warning that "by their fruits you shall know them."  Make a purchase of the book "Tumultuous Times" by the Radecki brothers to be able to read about the general councils of the Church.  It covers Vatican II and it's aftermath.  It gives a well researched explaination of how the Church cannot teach error and that what has been foisted on us is not from God.  I also recommend the website [christorchaos.com](http://christorchaos.com)  It is updated rather frequently with excellent articles analysing the current situation.

Do pray to Our Lady for guidance and humility, as we all should.

Joe

 

[Padua_Minded]

The First Vatican Council said that even authoratative non-infallible statements require our assent. It has never been accepted that we need only believe the ‘infallible’ articles of faith. Sadly the dissenting pseudo-traditionalist schismatics such as those in the Lefebvrist cult are so influenced by modernism and the belief that they are not subject to authority, that they refuse to humble themselves and accept all the Ecumenical Councils.

Furthermore (far more) Protestant observers were also invited to the Council of Trent, though none took up the offer, to my knowledge. They arguably were also offered more authority than the observers at VII.

 

[stmaria]

=

Padua_Minded;3644324] Sadly the dissenting pseudo-traditionalist schismatics such as **those in the Lefebvrist cult are so influenced by modernism **and the belief that they are not subject to authority, that they refuse to humble themselves and accept all the Ecumenical Councils.

SSPX are influenced by modernism? How so?

Furthermore (far more) Protestant observers were also invited to the Council of Trent, though none took up the offer, to my knowledge. They arguably were also offered more authority than the observers at VII.

There were protestants at Trent which was called to condemn the doctrine of the Protestants. They were allowed to speak, to defend their beliefs. Completely different than Vatican II

americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent13.htm#3
But since those of the glorious province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants, desire to be heard by the holy council in regard to these articles before they are defined, and for this reason have asked of it a pledge that they may be permitted to come here in safety, sojourn in this city, speak and express freely their views before the council and then depart when they please, this holy council, though it has for many months looked forward with great eagerness to their arrival, nevertheless, like an affectionate mother that groans and labors, desiring and laboring tirelessly to the end that among those who bear the Christian name there may be no schisms, but that as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so also may they confess the same, believe the same, know the same, trusting in the mercy of God and** hoping that they may be brought back **to the most holy and salutary union of one faith, hope and charity, willingly yielding to them in this matter, has, so far as it concerns [the council], given and granted, in accordance with their request, assurance of safety and good faith, which they call a safe-conduct, the tenor of which will be set forth below,

-Conduct Granted To Protestants
The holy and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legate and nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding, grants, so far as it pertains to the council itself, to each and all persons throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatever rank, station, condition and circumstances they may be, who may wish to come to this ecumenical and general council, security and full protection, which they call a safe-conduct, with each and all of the necessary and suitable clauses and decisions, even though they ought to be expressed specifically and not in general terms, and it is its wish that they be understood as so expressed, so that they may and shall enjoy full liberty to confer, make proposals and discuss those things that are to be discussed in the council; to come freely and safely to the ecumenical council, to remain and sojourn there and to propose therein, in writing as well as orally, as many articles as may seem good to them, to deliberate with the Fathers or with those who may have been chosen by the council and without any abuse and contumely dispute with them; they may also depart whenever they please. It has moreover seemed expedient to the holy council, that if for their greater liberty and safety they wish that certain judges be deputed on their behalf** in regard to crimes that either have been committed or may be committed by them,** they may themselves choose such as are favorably disposed toward them, even though the crimes should be of a grave nature or even savor of heresy."

 

[JReducation]

A Catechism is not infallible. Catechisms are summaries and instructions of the Catholic faith. The teachings they talk about SHOULD be infallible.

The Problem with the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is that it mixes infallible teaching with documents and teaching that is not infallible.
It mixes Magisterial teaching with documents of Vatican II. The documents of VII are not infallible, so they could mislead Catholics.
Older Catechisms like Trent and Baltimore are direct and every word is Magisterial teaching.

But the directions that we received from the Magisterium was to use the current Catechism of the Catholic Church as the model for all catechisms published from now on.

This is why the Church has taken great pains to review it come out with the second edition, to make sure that the translation is as accurate as possible. The Church is not doing this just so that we can have another book on our shelves.

“This catechism is given that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Cahtolic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” John Paul II, 1992

This is the paradigm that the Magisterium wants us to use for catechisms today.

JR

 

[JReducation]

For all those who are arguing over For Many and For All, the debate is pointless. The Church has already decided that the phrase is For Many as the Church has always used.

All future translations of Missals will use For Many.

**Tradition and the truth won. **

Cardinal Arinze and the Vatican have already decided this:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

I didn’t know there was a battle. I thought it was just a problem in the translation. Why do we have to turn everything into a battle? How Catholic is that?

JR

 

[Padua_Minded]

=
SSPX are influenced by modernism? How so?

They resist papal authority, yet claim to be Catholics in good standing. If they were truly Catholic (which they’re not) they would obey the Pope.

There is nothing Catholic about

• telling people the Vatican is in apostasy
• telling people they don’t have the right to attend non SSPX masses
• calling the Holy Father an anti-semite (as Holocaust-denying Bishop Willamson did)
• accussing the bishops of conspiring with Freemasons
• performing bogus marriages without Church authority
• giving out bogus annulments and absolving their own priests of censures without Rome’s permission
• telling people they don’t have a Sunday obligation if there is not an SSPX mass in their locality
• rejecting ecumenical councils and the demands of lawful authority

There were protestants at Trent which was called to condemn the doctrine of the Protestants. They were allowed to speak, to defend their beliefs. Completely different than Vatican II

You have not shown that it is all that different from VII. VII never absolved Protestants of heresy or schism nor does it give them a right to remain in their state of seperation from the Church. The Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent which you cite clearly shows they were permitted to take part in what is now called ecumenical dialog (though false version of ecumenism still abound). Not only that but they were given “power in all liberty to confer, [and] make proposals”. The six Protestant observers at the liturgical reforms weren’t given any more authority than that.

The Church still considers Protestantism as heresy, but it’s generally considered impolite and (unproductive) to be shoving terms like ‘heretics’ down their throats (even though its not untrue). The Council of Florence referred to the schismatic Orthodox emperor John Palacologus as “our most dear son” and the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph as “our venerable brother”. Maybe if we try to treat our schismatic brethren with dignity we can restore this split. Part of Bl John XXIII plan was to use the medicine of mercy rather than severity. Unfortunately as the Second Vatican Council was never properly implemented or properly interpreted, due to an episcopal rebellion, we are still awaiting to see the fruits of the Council.

 

[Auntie_M]

Please, would someone explain to me WHY you have to have a “password” to get into the “cwnews” website.
I have made an honest effort to find this “story” about Arinze and the Vatican declaring the “for Many”. I have, however, found where the Vatican is very “disturbed” with Arinze and may “demote” him.

I have found this to be true…alot of SSPX “connected” websites will require one to sign in and have a password. They have alot of different web pages, which are very deceiving to the eyes of all believers. We need to go straight to the Vatican Website or an “approved” news web such as The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.

Please could you tell me where you found this “newstory” anywhere else.

I really find it quite contrary with them “discouraging” their laity from using a computer, yet the Society leaders are ALL over the internet. You really have to “read between the lines” on some of their webpages to realize that it is really them. They come under all different clothing"

 

[stmaria]

=Padua_Minded;3645647]They resist papal authority, yet claim to be Catholics in good standing. If they were truly Catholic (which they’re not) they would obey the Pope.

There is nothing Catholic about

• telling people the Vatican is in apostasy
• telling people they don’t have the right to attend non SSPX masses
• calling the Holy Father an anti-semite (as Holocaust-denying Bishop Willamson did)
• accussing the bishops of conspiring with Freemasons
• performing bogus marriages without Church authority
• giving out bogus annulments and absolving their own priests of censures without Rome’s permission
• telling people they don’t have a Sunday obligation if there is not an SSPX mass in their locality
• rejecting ecumenical councils and the demands of lawful authority

None of the above has anything to do with modernism

You have not shown that it is all that different from VII. VII never absolved Protestants of heresy or schism nor does it give them a right to remain in their state of seperation from the Church

.
Where does Vatican II say, without ambiguity, in clear language that there is no salvation outside the Church and that they must return to the one True Church?

The Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent which you cite clearly shows they were permitted to take part in what is now called ecumenical dialog (though false version of ecumenism still abound). Not only that but they were given “power in all liberty to confer, [and] make proposals”.

Of course they were allowed to speak. Their doctrines were being condemned.

The six Protestant observers at the liturgical reforms weren’t given any more authority than that.

No one really knows what (name removed by moderator)ut the six observers had. There were hundreds of Protestant observers at Vatican II that were allowed to review all of the documents before they were voted on. Don’t for a minute doubt that they didn’t have (name removed by moderator)ut.

The Church still considers Protestantism as heresy

It would be nice to hear that preached now and then.,

Maybe if we try to treat our schismatic brethren with dignity we can restore this split. Part of Bl John XXIII plan was to use the medicine of mercy rather than severity

.

I would never call a protestant a heretic. As Jesus said, “they know not what they do”. I believe in dialogue. Times have changed. But you can’t speak in ambiguity forever.

Unfortunately as the Second Vatican Council was never properly implemented or properly interpreted, due to an episcopal rebellion, we are still awaiting to see the fruits of the Council.

Why hasn’t it been implemented? Pope John Paul could have implemented it. I think Pope Benedict will.

 

[saint_rafael]

Please, would someone explain to me WHY you have to have a “password” to get into the “cwnews” website.
I have made an honest effort to find this “story” about Arinze and the Vatican declaring the “for Many”. I have, however, found where the Vatican is very “disturbed” with Arinze and may “demote” him.

I have found this to be true…alot of SSPX “connected” websites will require one to sign in and have a password. They have alot of different web pages, which are very deceiving to the eyes of all believers. We need to go straight to the Vatican Website or an “approved” news web such as The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.

Please could you tell me where you found this “newstory” anywhere else.

I really find it quite contrary with them “discouraging” their laity from using a computer, yet the Society leaders are ALL over the internet. You really have to “read between the lines” on some of their webpages to realize that it is really them. They come under all different clothing"

I posted the link earlier and it works when I try it. It takes me to the story. Here it is:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

You can also get the story when you google Pro Multis

 

[saint_rafael]

But the directions that we received from the Magisterium was to use the current Catechism of the Catholic Church as the model for all catechisms published from now on.

This is why the Church has taken great pains to review it come out with the second edition, to make sure that the translation is as accurate as possible. The Church is not doing this just so that we can have another book on our shelves.

“This catechism is given that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Cahtolic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” John Paul II, 1992

This is the paradigm that the Magisterium wants us to use for catechisms today.

JR

All Catechisms are valid. The truths that they contain are eternal. Any Catholic can use all the Catechisms. It is a matter of preference.

The Magisterium is infallible teachings of the Popes and bishops united to the Pope throughout history. The Magisterium is not the clergy. It is not the governing decisions of the Church. The human agents of the Church should be UNITED to the Magisterium in their teachings, but they themselves are not the Magisterium.

 

[saint_rafael]

I have made an honest effort to find this “story” about Arinze and the Vatican declaring the “for Many”. I have, however, found where the Vatican is very “disturbed” with Arinze and may “demote” him.

Cardinal Arinze has reached the age of retirement in which all bishops submit their resignation.

He will soon be replaced. The rumor is that he will be replaced with Archbishop Ranjith. :extrahappy:

Archbishop Ranjith is a 100 times more traditional than Arinze. Arinze was not a friend of tradition.
Ranjith has famously spoken out against Communion in the hand and is in favor of kneeling and on the tongue. He has forcefully spoken in favor of Summorum Pontificum.
He is a close friend of Pope Benedict.

This man needs to be a cardinal because he will make a great future Pope.