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 (532 Views)
Fortunatus

Derekap
Mar 30 2008, 03:56 PM
I disagree Patrick.

Come on, Derek!! With what, precisely? And on what grounds?
Or are you one of those who believes that redemption and salvation are the same thing?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Mar 30 2008, 03:31 PM
You can repeat all day long, Clare, am I not entitled to express my views?

Derek,

I will repeat it all the while you persist in disregarding it as though your own opinion, which you seem to have formed with scant regard for what the Church has said, carries more weight.

I read that explanation from the Catechism of Trent, and I am satisfied with it. As far as I am concerned, "for many" are the words Our Lord said as recorded in the inspired word of God, and the Catechism is explaining why the Church was faithfully using the same words.

You seem to have a problem with that!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Clare.

Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died that ALL (everyone) would have the chance to go to Heaven. Unfortunately some choose not to do so, so one can say that He suffered and died for the MANY who accept the chance and succeed.

I think the criticism of the translation is very much exaggerated when surely both are correct. The fact of usage, custom and tradition is no criterion.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Mar 30 2008, 08:14 PM
Clare.

Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died that ALL (everyone) would have the chance to go to Heaven. Unfortunately some choose not to do so, so one can say that He suffered and died for the MANY who accept the chance and succeed.

I think the criticism of the translation is very much exaggerated when surely both are correct. The fact of usage, custom and tradition is no criterion.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains why the words "for all" are not used.

That should be the end of it!

Catechism of Trent
 
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.


Furthermore, whilst it can be argued that, in one sense He died "for all", to say that He said "for all" is a lie, since He did not say the words "for all".
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Clare wrote:

"Furthermore, whilst it can be argued that, in one sense He died "for all", to say that He said "for all" is a lie, since He did not say the words "for all"."

I didn't realise you were there, Clare, I thought you were much younger.

So now you accuse every Celebrant of The Ordinary form of telling a lie!!

Don't forget we have to rely on translators earlier than Latin.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Mar 31 2008, 09:10 PM
Clare wrote:

"Furthermore, whilst it can be argued that, in one sense He died "for all", to say that He said "for all" is a lie, since He did not say the words "for all"."

I didn't realise you were there, Clare, I thought you were much younger.

Derek.

I do not be 2000 years old to trust Sacred Scripture and the Church.

Quote:
 
So now you accuse every Celebrant of The Ordinary form of telling a lie!!

Not all of them.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I personnaly, am going to conclude my part in this discussion be restating:

Jesus Christ suffered and died so that all (everyone) might have the chance to go to Heaven.

Sadly, in practice, some people do not take up the chance therefore He suffered and died for many who do.

However, I think the start of this discussion revolved around the translation of "pro multis" which in itself is a translation and probably a translation of a translation.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

Quote:
 
However, I think the start of this discussion revolved around the translation of "pro multis" which in itself is a translation and probably a translation of a translation.
Which means it is as likely to be right as wrong and since the Church, whose official language is Latin, prefers "pro multis", then that is what it means.
The fact that ICEL decided differently for whatever reason simply demonstrates yet again the adage that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" (or in this case a commission).
Or, my preferred version, "committees should always consist of an odd number and three is too many".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Am I correct in believing Jesus died to save all who wished to be saved, with the condition that they died repentant of mortal sin?

If so, by the death of Jesus:

All men have the opportunity to be saved.
Many grasp the opportunity to be saved.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Quote:
 
USCCB | Examples

Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon) Institution Narrative: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Eucharistic Prayer II Institution Narrative: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Eucharistic Prayer III Institution Narrative: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Eucharistic Prayer IV Institution Narrative: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.


The erroneous translation of Pro Multis (ie For All) is gone.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Thanks Patrick. I don't care one way or the other but seeing it in print demonstrates the awkwardness of the " and for many" wording. No doubt composed by the people who write the directions for flatpack furniture in that "translated from the original Finnish into Turkish then into English" inimitable style.


John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Patrick
Tuesday, 25. August 2009, 12:01
The erroneous translation of Pro Multis (ie For All) is gone.
Something as fundamental as that in translation really does need to be got right, Patrick.
Either Jesus did say for all or He did say for many. Which does make a very big difference.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Wikipedia
 
In the Apostolic Constitution Cum occasione of 31 May 1653 Pope Innocent X declared that it is orthodox Catholic teaching to say that Christ shed his blood for all human beings without exception.

It is also orthodox Catholic teaching that not all will necessarily avail of the redemption obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood. While Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are actually saved. This seems never to have been authoritatively defined, since it has remained uncontroversial.

The Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated: "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."

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

If Jesus Christ did, as is alleged, say He came to save MANY then surely we are bordering on Calavanistic Predestination?
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Derekap
Wednesday, 26. August 2009, 17:27
If Jesus Christ did, as is alleged, say He came to save MANY then surely we are bordering on Calavanistic Predestination?
I don't think most of us would deny God can see the future, so He knows what we will do and what will happen long before it does.
So when I pray to Him for help... just before I 'slot' one of you... and I 'slot' you anyway... has God failed me in not giving me the Grace He knew I'd need and request before I asked?
And if so... what's the point of asking for His help???
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
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