Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Did Jesus Die For Many Or For All?
Topic Started: Sunday, 29. October 2006, 14:17 (526 Views)
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
From Fr Zuhlsdorf:

Quote:
 
About “pro multis”
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM, WDTPRS, PRO MULTIS — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:00 am

Since another blog has decided (perhaps imprudently) to publish something on it, and since it is already commented on by participants in this blog (for good or ill), here goes.

Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, "for many", in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.

Ever since Pope Paul VI, the Pontiff reserves to himself the approval of all sacramental forms in vernacular versions. Only Pope Benedict can make this decision.

WDTPRS has been hammering this for years, working as a lobby precisely for this, which is the single most important translation issue that had to be resolved. The WDTPRS articles have been used by members of the Vox Clara Committee, bandied about in Congregations, and even read by the Holy Father before his election. In the articles I urged readers to write respectful and brief letters about this issue to members of the Committee and prefects of Congregations. They did and I saw copies of their letters and the nice responses they received in return. The articles kept supplying ammunition during the war over the translation.

I see this as a real benchmark. Pope Benedict acts decisively once he has thought something through. He is interested in a new kind of dialogue, even ecumenical dialogue, based on accurate and forthright expressions of what we believe as a Church. The choice to say "for many" rather than "for all" indicates a serious shift of approach on many levels. It seems to me that the days of overly careful political correctness are done, at least in some spheres of the Church’s activity.

There may be some who do not find this news to be that big a thing. They might suggest that it does nothing for traditionalists who don’t want Mass in the vernacular anyway. To them I would say, first, that what is good for the whole Church is good for them. Holy Church is not to be reduced to the traditionalist minority, as important as it is in some respects. Clearly the traditionalists are not in the majority in the Church today. Thus, vernacular translations impact them more than they might think. The English language clearly dominates the world today. Since liturgical translations in other languages are undergoing revisions, they will be required to follow suit. Also, it is a unmistakable sign both that His Holiness is picking up speed in his work and that he is not content to maintain the status quo. He is making decisions with confidence.

It is necessary to continue with prayers for the Holy Father and with raising thanks to God for this important move on his part. We all know that it ain’t over ‘till it’s over. When I see some instrument of promulgation and the Holy Father’s signature, I will finally relax. Nevertheless I am very happy about this news.


Link to original

Fr Zuhlsdorf is a convert from Lutheranism. He has both secular and ecclesiastical academic degrees, and was ordained by John Paul II in 1991. He has appeared on EWTN and has contributed articles to Sacred Music, Catholic World Report and Inside The Vatican. Father lives in Rome, though he is often in the USA. He is available for retreats and conferences.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Forgetting Translations, and remembering that Latin was probably translated from the original source or from the original source via other languages, I have usually understood that Jesus Christ suffered and died on The Cross for all, ie everyone in the world, to have the chance to go to Heaven. Of course whether anyone accepts and prays and lives their life so that he/she will go to Heaven is a matter of freewill. The use of "many" could be interpreted that Jesus was rationing the benefit of His Sufferings or even choosing who would benefit, which I am absolutely certain He was not!

I think the English Expression is more truthful than the literal translation of the Latin!
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

Derek,
I agree. As one who is primarily a English speaker, I always interpreted Man, men, Mankind as EVERYONE No excaptions!!
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Fr Zuhlsdorf:
 
Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, "for many", in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.

How far are we to take this? Did Jesus die for many Jews, many Jews who would become Christians, many Gentile Christians, many people of Faith including Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, or just for Catholics? No. Jesus was infinitely loving. He would not differentiate between two people who had lived good lives, according to what they believed to be true. What about all those people in Britain, who never heard of Jesus Christ because they lived before missionaries came here? Are they condemned?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

When I read Patrick's extract I thought it 'reasonable'. However replies to the reverse seem just as reasonable. So I don't know.

One thing to mention - to say that Hell doesn't exist is, as you will know, heresy. But what about that saying (which I cannot find the source of) which expresses that hell is empty.

Am I distracting you here (smile).

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick
Oct, 02:17 PM
From Fr Zuhlsdorf:

Quote:
 
About “pro multis”
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM, WDTPRS, PRO MULTIS — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:00 am

Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, "for many", in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.



Could "for many" mean for the people who at least tried to be good?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Nov 1 2006, 03:25 AM
Patrick
Oct, 02:17 PM

Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, "for many", in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.

I have just remembered what this is all about.

Could "for many" mean for the people who at least tried to be good?

Rose,

Pro multis or For many is in the Mass of the Faithful, and not part of the Mass of the Catechumens.

This may hold the answer to your question. Whilst Christ died for all, he shed his blood for many.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gerry,

I have moved our last few posts on this thread to the 'Ecumenism' thread as the discussion we were having is more pertinent to that thread.

God bless,

Patrick.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
From the Catechism of Trent:

Quote:
 
Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. 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.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.

The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.

Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood.

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words. which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.

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.


LINK

Emphasis mine.

Posted by me, in the Year of Our Lord 2006.

;)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
At long last - the Vatican confirms that 'Pro Multis' IS making a comeback:

cwnews
 
Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (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, CWN has learned.

Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Critics of the current translation 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.

Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require


The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
“For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.


Deo gratias.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Quote:
 
Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision.


I bow to the Cardinal's education, knowledge, and position at the Vatican.

Quote:
 
Critics of the current translation 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.


Quote:
 
The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.


That demonstrates the difference between Catholic and Biblical fundamentalist interpretations of Salvation by Christ on the Cross.

I disagreed with use of words "for many" instead of "for all", until I read Cardinal Arinze's explanation. Clever bloke, eh?


Quote:
 
The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.


And that demonstrates the necessity for having a Latin text to fall back on. Other languages are more liable to change with the passage of time.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
What I don't understand is why it's taken the Vatican 35 years to admit what a lot of layfolk have been saying all along.

Will this letter to each episcopal conference apply to all Bishops or many?

:wacko:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I still maintain that Jesus Christ died for the purpose that everyone would be redeemed but some have chosen and will choose not to be redeemed. Therefore both "many" and "all" are in my opinion correct. The question of the translation of the Latin word is not in these circumstances is not so vital.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I know what I was taught, what I have read, and what I believe about the Redemption, and frankly I cannot be bothered spending hours worrying about whether a word should be translated one way or the other. Jesus gave his life so that those who accept salvation (and do not die in a state of serious, unrepented sin) are saved.

I have a peculiar habit of letting the guys at the Vatican do their job. Not one of them has ever had the decency or generosity to offer to do mine.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

A few days ago Cardinal Arinze said that in the early days the Church used Greek but was latinised in the 4th Century. If this is correct one could perhaps say our Rites should be in Greek because it is an even earlier tradition than Latin!

Another interesting point, is Church Latin more correct than Classical Latin or vv?
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply