Pro Multis

  • Thread starter Thread starter hilarycotter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hilarycotter

Guest
I heard that Pope Benedict was going to insist that Pro Multis be translated as for many. I asked the person who told me this - someone pro SSPX, but currently attending the Indult mass where he heard this can could he give me a source, but he has yet to do this.

Can someone confirm or deny this, with a source?

TIA

Hilary
 
Yup, it’s true. “For all” is a bad translation, one might say it is in fact NOT a translation, of “pro multis.” Since they are fixing the English translation of the Missal they are fixing this in with it:

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

(To be precise, it was the Congregation for Divine Worship which issued the decision.)
 
Great, thanks no place like home!

I thought that for all was more correct as Christ died for all, although many reject him. It seems from what is quoted that they are embracing something more restrictive to avoid people assuming automatic salvation, while at the same time raising the question “Well who did He die for?”

Am I off base here?
 
WOW !

Thanks for this one. I was about to ask a question regarding something unrelated that I’d just read on the net. I just keep missing all the good news - A-MAZING how our American media keeps the pertinent things to an absolute minimum.

Headed to read that link now and
God Bless You,
Conservative
 
From the Catholic World News article:
Critics of the current translation “for all”] have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as “for all” not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, “for many,” more accurately suggests that while Christ’s redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.
Click to expand...
Beyond that I can’t help much. Maybe someone else can give a fuller explanation.
 
No biggie NoPlaceLikeRome, I had read earlier that for all was more correct, but now it appears to have been wrong:)

I really just wanted clarification on that point and you have clarified!
 
This is from the Catechism of Trent

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

“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.
Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top