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 (531 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think this question is best answered by examining to begin with what it is the Church actually means by "salvation". When we've done that, the all/many dichotomy evaporates.

More later.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

for those who may be interested, my Bishop is trying to explain in his weekly column the "for many", "for all" problem

http://www.patersondiocese.org/
Edited by Deacon Robert, Friday, 15. April 2011, 19:13.
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
 
Anne-Marie

Deacon Robert
Friday, 15. April 2011, 19:12
for those who may be interested, my Bishop is trying to explain in his weekly column the "for many", "for all" problem
Simples, Deacon Robert.
The English (or any other language translation) should be an accurate translation of the original (as approved by Vaticano) Latin - and the Latin has always said 'for many', although some bright spark decided to re-write the text at the last translation and make it 'for all'. It has now been corrected to a true translation and is 'for many' in the new translation from September.
'For many' also happens to be consistent with scripture... which might just be why the original Latin says just that!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Maybe I've misunderstood or gone wrong, but the version (of 'many' or 'for all') I read comes to the crucial explanation and then says "to be continued".

After all,God the Father sent His Only Son on earth for the Redemption of ALL - if we believe that we should say so, despite the original Latin or earlier language versions.

Bishop Serratelli like most supporters of the new translation seems to believe everyone will find the new translation more devout and inspiring and therefore the celebration of Holy Mass will appear to be more sacred. Frankly I disagree. It is only human to experience an occasional lapse (I myself thankfully have not experienced such). On the contrary I have found celebrations of Holy Mass with the current translation more devout than some of the Tridentine celebrations that appeared to me to be in rattling Latin or a very quiet murmur and often seemed to be an individual event rather rather than incorporating the congregation.
Edited by Derekap, Friday, 15. April 2011, 22:01.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Deacon Robert
Friday, 15. April 2011, 19:12
for those who may be interested, my Bishop is trying to explain in his weekly column the "for many", "for all" problem

http://www.patersondiocese.org/
Deacon Robert's bishop
 
This one change has generated the most reaction from laity, religious, priests and bishops. We need to look very carefully at the reasons for the change. Why is the Pope himself insisting on the change? What does the change mean? Does it in any way limit the purpose of Jesus’ pouring out his blood? Or does it, in fact, open us to a meaning within the words of consecration that we may be missing by simply saying “for all”?
Let us begin with a very clear statement and put to rest some of the uneasiness with the new translation. The change is in no way a limiting of the effect of the suffering and death of Jesus to only some people. During the Jansenist controversy from the 16th to 18th century, some were maintaining that Christ only died for the elect. They limited God’s salvific will to the predestined. The Church strongly condemned this view (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096).

It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all. “There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6; cf. also 1 Tim 4:10; John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 1 John 2:2). Most recently, Dominus Jesus, a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and subtitled “On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Churcht must …be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God” (Dominus Jesus, 14, August 6, 2000).,” states emphatically that “i

If the Church teaches that Jesus died for all, then why change the present words of consecration that speak of his blood poured out “for all” and instead say that his blood is poured out “for many”?


It seems the old translation used before Vatican II did not comply with Catholic teaching, the one in Novus Ordo gets it right and the new translation revives the error of the past. Does that boil down to the original Latin texts being in error?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

If "for many" is in error and/or at variance with Catholic teaching, I'm afraid the fault lies not in the Tridentine text but with SS Matthew and Mark, plainly heretics on this point (see Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24).
"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
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

wait for part 2 and possibly 3
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
 
Anne-Marie

OsullivanB
Friday, 15. April 2011, 22:49
If "for many" is in error and/or at variance with Catholic teaching, I'm afraid the fault lies not in the Tridentine text but with SS Matthew and Mark, plainly heretics on this point (see Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24).
Quite, OSB: As I said, the corrected translation is based on scripture.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

OsullivanB
Friday, 15. April 2011, 22:49
If "for many" is in error and/or at variance with Catholic teaching, I'm afraid the fault lies not in the Tridentine text but with SS Matthew and Mark, plainly heretics on this point (see Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24).
:stirthepot:

Methinks you, a student of Greek, know more ..............
Edited by Gerard, Saturday, 16. April 2011, 09:56.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

19 April 2011 | Bishops welcome the new edition of the Missal

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2011/04/19/19-april-2011-bishops-edition-missal/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I get the impression the Bishops who have issued this Statement are very anxious indeed that the laity may not be so convinced at the alleged improvement and that is why there is so much propaganda and persuation in its favour

"The new edition of the Missal will bring a freshness and beauty to the language used at worship, capturing the biblical resonances of our prayers more clearly and the rich words and phrases of the prayers, many more than 1200 years old"

And with your spirit!

We don't speak languages of 1,200 years ago and our culture and way of expressing ourselves has evolved!

(Very recent experiences of mine of the interpretation of English statements and French translations into English have shown me how easy it is to cause misunderstandings. I still insist that God the Father sent His Only Son to redeem ALL (everyone without exception) - the fact that some people may refuse to be redeemed and go to Hell is not God's fault. Jesus Christ did not come on earth to redeem a select number - like Jeohovah's witnesses)
Edited by Derekap, Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 11:02.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Derekap
Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 10:57
I still insist that God the Father sent His Only Son to redeem ALL (everyone without exception)
My assumption/sympathy has always been with your view, Derek.
Trouble is: The dogma/teaching of the Church, as approved in the 'master' Latin version by a council of the Church supported by popes historically has always stated quite clearly 'for many' - whether you and I like it or not.
Even the approved Latin of the Novus Ordo version is clear about that... but for whatever reason, those producing the English translation chose to write 'for all'.

Now all that raises the thorny problem of whether councils of the Church and/or popes have any power or right to determine what our Church teaches and what we should believe.
And if we start challenging that:
1. Are we Catholic?
2. Does the Church have the right or power to impose anything belief on us? Or is it all a 'con'???

Interpretation or understanding of issues may vary, but a straight, specific historical teaching of the Church at the highest unified (popes AND council) level is a tad awkward if we don't like it....
The whole Faith comes unstuck if we choose to reject the Church's teaching as 'wrong'.
IS IT? :bl:
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
For many or for all?

My father grew vegetables for the family, ALL of us. If some members of the family ate the vegetables, and some did not, the fact remains Dad had grown them for all.

If Jesus died for many but not for all, that means those for whom he did not die are predestined not to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

If the wording was "died for all who die repentant of mortal sin" the meaning would be clear.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Anne-Marie wrote:

"The whole Faith comes unstuck if we choose to reject the Church's teaching as 'wrong'"

I repeat: The Church surely teaches that Jesus Christ came on earth to redeem all of us, everyone, without exception? The fact that some have refused and continue to refuse Redemption are personal decisions of individuals.

In this instance I don't think the choice of 'all' or 'many' is doctrinal; it is a matter of insistance of what was expressed centuries ago has precedence over what should be expressed these days.

Edited by Derekap, Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 15:39.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
1 John 2:2

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
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