many vs. all

Not open for further replies.


Vatican 2 changed the institution of the eucharistic sacrifice when it changed the words from “many” to “all” when he holds up the chalice and says this is my blood which has been shed for you and “many” ,is the way it reads in scripture. How do you get to change scripture and why would you.
The following official interpretations of the “General Instruction on the Roman Missal” have been published by the Sacred Congregation in its journal “Notitiae” [indicated by: Not., vol. (year) pages]. The numbers preceding the Query and Reply are those of the applicable paragraph in the “General Instruction.”]

55d. In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words “pro multis” are translated thus: English, “for all”; Spanish, “por todos”; Italian, “per tutti.”

Query: a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing in this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by “pro multis” has as its meaning “for all”: the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of St. Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that it has been given for them alone are proud” (“Enarr.” in Ps. 95, 5).

b. The teaching of the “Catechism” is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation: Not 6 (1970) 39-40, no. 28.

Additionally, Scripture teaches explicitly that Christ died “for all”: 1 Tim. 2:5-6, 1 Jn. 2:2, 2 Cor. 5:15. We also read in *The Catechism of the Catholic Church * (no. 1992) that “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.” CCC no. 618: “But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.” [GS 22 § 5; cf. § 2] And in no. 1368 “The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men.”

Lastly, I highly recommend the book The Pope the Council and the Mass by James Likoudis.
Not open for further replies.