Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walking_Home
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irish_High_King said:
I wonder if Karl Keating or Jimmy Akin will be making any pronouncements on the news?
Click to expand...
This is what they said in 2000:
This Rock Magazine: As for your argument regarding the translation of the words of consecration, again you assume it is “implying” something it is not. The Latin phrase rendered “for all” is pro
Click to expand...
multis, which would more literally be translated “for the multitudes” or “for many.” I can do no better on this subject than to quote James Akin’s book, Mass Confusion:*
"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. . . . t is theologically true that Christ shed his blood for all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2). The claim that he shed his blood only for the elect or only for the faithful was condemned during the Jansenist controversy (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096, 1294). In biblical idiom, the term ‘many’ is often used as a synonym for ‘all.’ For example, when Paul says that ‘by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners’ (Rom 5:19), he means that all men were made sinners" (Mass Confusion).

“The liceity of the translation ‘for all’ is not in question because it is part of a Church-approved text of the Mass” (This Rock, May-June 2000)
Click to expand...
Actually, after doing a google search it appears that they defended the mistranslation numerous times over the years. I wonder if they are going to issue a formal retraction and/or an apology? It seems like that would be the right thing to do since so many of us read their materials and assume we are getting the correct information.
 
MaryRose35 said:
This is what they said in 2000:

**

Actually, after doing a google search it appears that they defended the mistranslation numerous times over the years. I wonder if they are going to issue a formal retraction and/or an apology? It seems like that would be the right thing to do since so many of us read their materials and assume we are getting the correct information.
Click to expand...
Hi Mary Rose,

But why should Jimmy Akin, et al. issue an apology? They defended the translation on the grounds that it was 1)a translation allowed by the Church; 2) not clear theological error; and 3) it in no way invalidates the consecration.

I don’t think most people argued that it was the best translation. . . on a purely linguistic level.

Look at the text of the purported letter from Cardinal Arinze again, and let’s bold the portions that correspond to what Jimmy Akin has always reiterated:

There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of **a duly approved formula **containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared. Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women

It looks like the Vatican is saying 1)this translation had been allowed by the church; 2) it is not clear theological error and 3) it does not invalidate the Consecration.

So, I can’t see why Jimmy should issue a retraction.

I do see, however, why those who held that “for all” invalidated the consecration should issue a retraction. . . or at least should accept that “there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity”.

What do you think?
God Bless,
VC
 
MrS said:
When the different theology is represented by the “for all”, and the correct theology is found in the “formany”… it is far from pointless.
Click to expand...
Do you not think that Christ died for everyone?

The discussion is (was) pointless because this term could be looked at from different angles and no one would agree on which angle they wanted to take. In effect, both are right: Christ suffered died for all, but not all take advantage of His redemptive act. Some would like to argue that Christ’s act was not intended for anyone who isn’t baptized but this heresy was condemned by the Church which clearly teaches that souls who through no fault of their own never hear the Gospel still have salvation open to them.

Correct Theology is both, that is what makes the enthusiasm people were putting into this discussion unnecessary. I am for the translation “For Many” because that is clearly the Latin but saying “For All” would still be theologically sound
 
“For All” could be theologically sound as part of a commentary on our Lord’s sacrifice, but what we have at the Consecration is more than commentary, and we are told that the priest is speaking the words that Christ spoke. If we hear something else, we hear something false, and falsehood should be no part of the Mass, especially at the consecration.

If you look at the many translations of the Bible, you will see our Lord’s words consistently translated as “for many”, not “for all”, even in “dynamic” translations, such as the New Living Translation.

A correct theology of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper has to start with the words that He actually spoke.

God bless Pope Benedict for insisting on fidelity to our Savior’s words.
8640 said:
Do you not think that Christ died for everyone?

The discussion is (was) pointless because this term could be looked at from different angles and no one would agree on which angle they wanted to take. In effect, both are right: Christ suffered died for all, but not all take advantage of His redemptive act. Some would like to argue that Christ’s act was not intended for anyone who isn’t baptized but this heresy was condemned by the Church which clearly teaches that souls who through no fault of their own never hear the Gospel still have salvation open to them.

Correct Theology is both, that is what makes the enthusiasm people were putting into this discussion unnecessary. I am for the translation “For Many” because that is clearly the Latin but saying “For All” would still be theologically sound
Click to expand...
 
8640 said:
Do you not think that Christ died for everyone?

The discussion is (was) pointless because this term could be looked at from different angles and no one would agree on which angle they wanted to take. In effect, both are right: Christ suffered died for all, but not all take advantage of His redemptive act. Some would like to argue that Christ’s act was not intended for anyone who isn’t baptized but this heresy was condemned by the Church which clearly teaches that souls who through no fault of their own never hear the Gospel still have salvation open to them.

Correct Theology is both, that is what makes the enthusiasm people were putting into this discussion unnecessary. I am for the translation “For Many” because that is clearly the Latin but saying “For All” would still be theologically sound
Click to expand...
How about those who hear and then consciously reject the sacrifice of Christ? Would you say that they are still saved regardless of their rejection of Christ?
 
Gloria in excelsis Deo!

May our Holy Father continue to faithfully reform the Liturgy away from that insipid 70’s ICEL translation.👍
 
gelsbern said:
I hardly consider the discussions pointless especially in light that the Vatican found it important enough to release a declaration on it. It seems to me that the item was a very hot topic, and my hats off to the Holy Father and the Vatican on this declaration. The authorities in Rome don’t issue declaration on pointless issues.
Click to expand...
Just for the record:
  1. The fact that this came out just after recent discussions with the SSPX and
  2. The fact that the SSPX has made this a vigorous objection over the decades and
  3. That fact that the Vatican accepted the importance of this in Catholic Scriptural history , especially Jerome’s Vulgate deemed correct by many Church documents and
  4. The fact that it is Objectively a misquote of God the Son’s words, in favor of novel interpretation, ie translate the intent (of the USCCB) not the actual words
** To me implies that this was an Olive Branch to the SSPX and by inference all the Traditionalist Catholics.
**
Since there is nothing more hated by most of the bishops than Pre-Vatican II Tradtional Catholics even more than Islamic Nazism, they will drag their leaded feet on this forever without a mass movement by ALL the Faithful to their bishops. In other words, collection money talks, theology walks in the USCCB.
 
It’s too bad that Vatican 2 advisors who put in “for all” instead of “for many” were not there during the last supper. They could have advised Jesus of the correct word to use.

That would have saved Cardinal Arinze the trouble of explaining that even though Jesus meant for all, He said “for many”. May the Vatican semanticists save us all.
 
catholic2 said:
It’s too bad that Vatican 2 advisors who put in “for all” instead of “for many” were not there during the last supper. They could have advised Jesus of the correct word to use.
Click to expand...
How come it’s always Vatican II who gets blamed for this?

“For all” is not Vatican II’s fault.
 
catholic2 said:
It’s too bad that Vatican 2 advisors who put in “for all” instead of “for many” were not there during the last supper. They could have advised Jesus of the correct word to use.

That would have saved Cardinal Arinze the trouble of explaining that even though Jesus meant for all, He said “for many”. May the Vatican semanticists save us all.
Click to expand...
I do not think it wasn’t Vatican II that introduced this. I believe it was the ICEL translation to English along with the committee (which included several Protestants!) which created the new Mass, pretty much from thin air, that did this. However, that committee was guided by the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”.
 
porthos11 said:
How come it’s always Vatican II who gets blamed for this?

“For all” is not Vatican II’s fault.
Click to expand...
True the council itself might noat have done it, heck they might not even have imagined it. But the very nebulosity of many of the statements that came out of it and the speed with which reformers pounced upon any and all ambiguous statements certainly was. the reformers took any advantage possible in their zeal to completely recreate the church in a modern image… The councils only fault was not being 100% precise in what it wanted done.

But then again, maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what direction things would go. Kind of a moot point now, as we can’t go back and change things…
 
rpp said:
I do not think it wasn’t Vatican II that introduced this. I believe it was the ICEL translation to English along with the committee (which included several Protestants!) which created the new Mass
Click to expand...
Since the pro multis issue shows up in the vernacular for languages besides English, it makes me hesitant to blame the ICEL exclusively. They weren’t in charge of those translations. Which came first? Did the other languages copy from the ICEL or something? Do we have a timeline on this?
 
Tomster,

I read the article you linked to, although I fear some temporary eye damage from all the sparks flying off the grinding of the axe. 😉

A bit more serious now:

I am surprised, after reading your prior posts which have been measured and careful, that you would pick that article: doesn’t it seem to you to lack a bit of evenhandedness?

I found it curious, just to take one instance, that the author quoted the This Rock magazine editorial reply, characterizing it as one of the “examples of the neo-Catholic defense of the indefensible”, and yet failed to include the portion of the reply that states:
The Latin phrase rendered “for all” is pro multis, which would more literally be translated “for the multitudes” or "for many."
Click to expand...
:confused: Why would the author of the article you linked to leave this out? It shows, I think, more accurately what the view of Jimmy Akin, This Rock, et al. was regarding the “pro multis” issue: that is was not a good translation, but that it did not invalidate the consecration.

I just haven’t been able to find anything by Jimmy Akin that does what those who wish him to issue a retraction claim he did, namely attacking “traditionalists” for pointing out the mistranslation. I think that Jimmy mainly concerned himself with pointing out 1) that the mistranslation was not intrinsically theological error, and 2) that the mistranslation did not and does not invalidate the consecration.

I point that out because this seems to me to be exactly what Cardinal Arinze’s letter says too:

There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared. Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women.

But the author of the article you linked to does not quote that portion of Arinze’s letter.

I just don’t find any reason for Jimmy Akin, et al. to issue a retraction or apology. I do however wonder if those who have taught that the “for all” translation invalidated the Mass will retract such statements now, given Cardinal Arinze’s letter.

What do you think Tomster, am I way off base here? Do you think the article you linked to does a fair job of presenting the issue?

God Bless,
VC
 
Tomster,

I would have to agree with Verbum Caro that the article that you posted while interesting was strongly biased.

As an interesting side note in the “defective” Anglican liturgy, thay translate that portion of the eucharist prayer as “for many” vs. “for all” which our liturgy is worded. And when the anglican priest says, “The Lord be with you.” Their response is “And with thy spirit.” vs. our response which is “And also with you”. It appears that traditionalists would be more confortable with the Anglicans than thay do with the majority of english speaking Catholics.

Which would not be that far a move for you it seems, if I have read your past posts correctly, where you state that you support the SSPX and at the same time claim to loyal to the magisterium. I could be wrong but I am not aware of any member of the SSPX who are under the authority of the local bishop, much less than being under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Peace,

Br Mark, OSB
 
“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 are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of 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.” - The Roman Catechism

“Pope Paul VI saw fit to alter the words of Consecration and Institution, unchanged in the Roman liturgy for 1,500 years - a change that was neither intended by the Council nor of any discernable pastoral benefit. Truly problematic, in fact truly scandalous, is the ttranslation of the phrase “pro multis” as “for all,” a translation inspired by modern theological thinking but not to be found in any historical liturgical text.” - Mons. Klaus Gamber

If Mr. Akin had really thought that the translation was bad why didn’t he just come right out and say it was bad in his book “Mass Confusion”.

Just a suggestion, maybe if Mr. Akin decides to revise his book he could include his thoughts about the translation. Another thing he could include in a revision is an expansion of the term “radical traditionalists” as found on page 119 in his book. He kind of just dumped the term in there without giving an explanation of it.

Tomster
 
Tomster,

I’m not sure how the quotes you provided address my post about the perceived uneveness of “The Remnant” article you linked to.

And I’m not sure, either, how your response:
Tomster said:
If Mr. Akin had really thought that the translation was bad why didn’t he just come right out and say it was bad in his book “Mass Confusion”.
Click to expand...
speaks to my suspicion that the article you linked to seems to be somewhat unfair.

But, to address your question about Jimmy Akin:
  1. I don’t know if he didn’t “come right out and say it”. Do you have the book Mass Confusion? Perhaps you could provide some context around that quote?
  2. Assuming Jimmy didn’t explicitly say “this is a bad translation” it doesn’t mean that he didn’t think it was. It seems that the quote in question is addressing the theological issues regarding translating “pro multis” as “for all” – and in fact, I would guess, that Jimmy was concerned with defending against those who claimed it invalidated the consecration.
Maybe it was just a matter of him focusing on another issue?

I’m not trying to pick a fight Tom, I am just pointing out that the article you linked to is hard to take seriously. The author doesn’t actually quote Mr. Akin, but provides a quote that quotes Mr. Akin. (I’m not even sure whether or not the actual text in Mr. Akin’s book is, or at least is partially, a quote itself . . .since it seems very similar to Appedix 2 of the the 2nd Edition GIRM on the “pro multis” translation.) And the author of the Remanant article leaves out a significant sentence of the “This Rock” editorial reply which would marshal against the interpretation given it.

Its not a big issue, but I just wanted to point out what seem to be defects in the article. Since the article is highly critical of Catholic Answers and Jimmy Akin, and others, I felt, in justice, that it needed to be scrutinized.

Thanks, and God Bless,
VC
 
Br_Mark said:
Tomster,

I would have to agree with Verbum Caro that the article that you posted while interesting was strongly biased.

As an interesting side note in the “defective” Anglican liturgy, thay translate that portion of the eucharist prayer as “for many” vs. “for all” which our liturgy is worded. And when the anglican priest says, “The Lord be with you.” Their response is “And with thy spirit.” vs. our response which is “And also with you”. It appears that traditionalists would be more confortable with the Anglicans than thay do with the majority of english speaking Catholics.

Which would not be that far a move for you it seems, if I have read your past posts correctly, where you state that you support the SSPX and at the same time claim to loyal to the magisterium. I could be wrong but I am not aware of any member of the SSPX who are under the authority of the local bishop, much less than being under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Peace,

Br Mark, OSB
Click to expand...
Traditionalists would not be more comfortable with the Anglicans and this is why:

The preconciliar Popes condemned any common worship with Protestants as a danger to the Faith, but Vatican II opened the door to it and Pope John Paul II (expressly and by example) teaches that common prayer and even joint liturgies with Protestant ministers (who condone abortion, contraception, and divorce) is essential to the search for Christian unity. The 1949 Instruction of the Holy Office on the ecumenical movement which forbade any form of common worship at discussion groups authorized by the local bishop, are required that the Catholic truth on the return of the dissidents to the one true Church be presented.

In his encyclical Mortalium Animos Pope Pius XI condemned as error the belief that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, whereas Pope John Paul II has taught that God has bestowed spiritual treasures on every people in the form of their various religions; and in keeping with this view the Pope repeatedly invited representatives of all religions - monotheistic, polytheistic and even non-theistic to Assisi to offer prayers for world peace (which prayers he evidently regarded as pleasing to God).

As a suggestion you might want to read and compare Mortalium Animos and Lumen Gentium (especially the infamous paragraph #8). As far as I know the was no expiration date attached to Mortalium Animos.

Personnaly I am not a member of the SSPX and have never attended any of the Masses celebrated at their chapels. I do sympathize with them though. The Society have always placed themselves at the service of eternal Rome and pray daily at every Mass they celebrate for the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI because they acknowledge him as the true successor of St. Peter. Their Masses are valid and licit and any Catholic may attend them to fulfill their Sunday obligation and that ruling comes from Rome itself.

Tomster

If you decide to read Mortalium Animos please bear in mind what Pope John Paul wrote in Ut Unim Sint #60, " thanks to radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes engendered by Vatican II, the Catholic Church will train new priests to pave the way for future relations between the two (referring to the schismatic Orthodox) Churches (two Churches ??? How many brides does Christ have?) passing beyond the OUTDATED ECCLESIOLOGY OF RETURN TO THE TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." Go figure!
 
Tomster said:
If you decide to read Mortalium Animos please bear in mind what Pope John Paul wrote in Ut Unim Sint #60, " thanks to radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes engendered by Vatican II, the Catholic Church will train new priests to pave the way for future relations between the two (referring to the schismatic Orthodox) Churches (two Churches ??? How many brides does Christ have?) passing beyond the OUTDATED ECCLESIOLOGY OF RETURN TO THE TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." Go figure!
Click to expand...
At least 22. There is the Roman, the Rutherian, the Chaldean, the Melkite, Maronite etc…

Each of those is a *sui juris *CHURCH.

Catholic ecclesiology has always refered to a distinct patriarchate with a valid apostolic sucession as a CHURCH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top