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 (529 Views)
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerard
Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 20:24

We are talking about a prayer - not a doctrinal statement.

Gerryall
You make a very valuable distinction here Gerry. The church teaching is that Jesus Died for all and that by His "One Sacrifice" all may come to salvation. But in Prayer we are reminding ourselves that we each of us may be unworthy and so are reminded as Jesus reminded the Apostles when he washed their feet that, those who are clean do not need a bath, but he had washed them so they where clean, but he added, "Though not, all of you are" (listen out for it in tommorow evenings liturgy). I am speculating and considering Judas was still present when the blessing of the cup took place Jesus may have been anticipating that if we were to ask, "Surly Judus drank from the Cup and therefore was saved?" we could answer "No" for to drink of the cup is not enough, it is not magic. Jeus by his death and resurection made it possible for all to be saved but as many of you have said their is still a requirment for each of us to live a good life, in the "Way of Christ" (consiously or unconsiously). As I say it is just a thought, I look forward to hearing the rest of the Bishops statment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

This reminds me of nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, of all the issues facing our Church right now, I would think that the nuanced difference between "many" and "all" should be pretty far down the list.

I sometimes wonder how our leaders will explain their stewardship when they meet their final judgement. I can just picture Pope Benedict saying, "I'm sorry, Lord, I made a bit of a hash of handling the child abuse crisis and couldn't do much to stop the dwindling of Mass attendance or the total collapse in vocations, but never mind all that, I finally got the 'all'/'many' issue sorted out!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin, the church is indead in stormy waters. All hands are needed to do their part to prevent it crashing onto the rocks or capsising. The reality is though that a single loose sheat or torn sail will prevent the ship weathering the storm, so while there are other matters that demand attention we should not overlook the small details. One of which is to trust in the Lord that All are saved and not to loose hope and accept that may be the time has come to head for the life boats so that many may reach a safe haven.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Derekap
Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 21:22
OsB wrote:

"polloi = many and that's what it says in the gospel accounts of the last supper. No point in blaming the translators"

'polloi' may mean many, but 'all' is surely still the correct pronoun in English?

This is just how slavishly literal in translation results in incorrect and inappropriate English
polloi = many
pantes = all
the evangelists wrote polloi
Yes you can translate it as "all", but only in the sense that you "can" translate it as "oblong" or "blue" etc.
It would not be accurate, but it might better fit some preconceived idea of the truth.
"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
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
What about the people who had died before Christ was crucified? Some were set free to enter Heaven. Presumably some had died unrepentant of mortal sin. Surely, by the time Jesus died it was too late to save them? They themselves had already rejected God. Could this be the explation of "died for many"?

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Rose of York
Thursday, 21. April 2011, 00:16
What about the people who had died before Christ was crucified? Some were set free to enter Heaven. Presumably some had died unrepentant of mortal sin. Surely, by the time Jesus died it was too late to save them? They themselves had already rejected God. Could this be the explation of "died for many"?

Mortal sin hadn't been invented (not a wholly facetious remark).
"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

OsB wrote:

"Mortal sin hadn't been invented (not a wholly facetious remark)"

Surely, OsB. you are not inferring that if I had lived in Old Testament days murder and adultery, although against The Ten Commandments. were not serious sins?
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

No. I meant what I said. the categorisation of sins as mortal and venial had not yet come to be.

Nor had confession. Expiation was by killing animals.

Indeed there was serious disagreement about whether there was an afterlife at all. Eternal damnation was not therefore necessarily a concern.
"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
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
OsullivanB
Thursday, 21. April 2011, 11:54
No. I meant what I said. the categorisation of sins as mortal and venial had not yet come to be.

Nor had confession. Expiation was by killing animals.

Indeed there was serious disagreement about whether there was an afterlife at all. Eternal damnation was not therefore necessarily a concern.
In Old Testament time mortal sin was not a concern for the people, who did not know their souls would live for eternity. The fact remains that Jesus freed the souls of the dead, so they could enter Heaven. I take it not all had died with their souls in a fit state to go there. Those who regretted wrongdoing offered sacrifice in expiation. Those who were not sorry, and did not have it on their consciences they had committed serious breaches of the Commandments, did not offer a sacrifice. All the souls of those who died before Jesus was crucified must be in one state right now, Heaven or Hell. Therefore I maintain some had left it too late to be saved the the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Thursday, 21. April 2011, 11:54
No. I meant what I said. the categorisation of sins as mortal and venial had not yet come to be.

Nor had confession. Expiation was by killing animals.

Indeed there was serious disagreement about whether there was an afterlife at all. Eternal damnation was not therefore necessarily a concern.
OSB you are absolutely correct. The definition of sin and its classification was vague and is still being revised. The issue of Original sin and the state of people who died before Christ was in part tackled by St Augustine and many doctrines on sin have their root in his teaching, he did not come on the scene until the 5th century.
As for the issue of people having missed their chance, time is a human concept so I would not like to say definitively when a person has had their last chance with GOD. Yes there is a hell, and though some would argue there is no proof that anyone is there it may be that some people have "Missed their chance" but in the eternity of God's time, that could be concurrent with ours, they may have been given the chance in purgatory who knows. . Though the church does teach that there will be a final judgment when God will judge the Living and the dead, I am more concerned with the living and my own chances than with the dead; in this I have some sympathy with Mairtin’s point.
Jesus died for all his blood was poured out for many, note poured out not shed there is a difference. The custom had been to pour half of the blood of the sacrificed animal over the crowd as part of the Atonement so there is a scriptural consistency that not all the blood was poured and that not everyone would have been splattered by it. It is also consistent, as I mentioned above with the notion that those who are already cleansed do not need to be washed again so not all the people needed to be washed, and not all the people would wish to be washed thus many not all will directly benefit from the pouring out of the blood, though all who wish to benefit may.
Just to stir the pot, we believe in that Mary was without sin so she would not have needed to be washed in the blood of sacrifice so may be, like a considerate Son, Jesus by saying many rather than all was acknowledging her sinless state.
Edited by Penfold, Thursday, 21. April 2011, 16:46.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Am I being overly simplistic about this? It seems to me that salvation through the death of Jesus is AVAILABLE to all but not all will avail of it. Therefore either "all" or "many" is perfectly correct and the argument is simply a semantic one with no relevance whatsoever to living out our Faith in general or improving the quality of our participation in the Mass in particular; that to me is what the Church really should be focusing on if she is serious about getting people back to regular worship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Mairtin,

I think there is a serious point here. As I see it, a particular group or groups wish to return to a "fortress catholicism". They are keen on word selection like this because it reinforces their desire to be in the fortress and point to others who are outside it. I am not alone in seeing it this way and there is another group or groups who resist this tendency and wish to be more open.

I think these two tendencies are always with us. Interestingly I am reading Ezra - Nehemiah at the moment and in this tradition the fortress tendency wins (temporarily). The more open tendency is found among the books of the minor prophets who were current at the same time.

Gerry
"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

The church is a refuge not a prison where all may find sanctuary form the evil of the World.
Quote:
 
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14* Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15* and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.( Eph 6:10-20)

Luther loved to sing of the church as a Mighty Fortress of God but there is no question of the Church being a fortress to keep the faithful out even he spoke of it as a place in which the faithful could be safe.
Christ excludes no-one from the offer of salvation and neither does his church.
The sad reality is that as in any human society there are some who are corrupt and who have betrayed the trust of others. But while it may be that one must cut out a damaged or corupted organ so that the body may live, one should take care not to kill the body by cutting out the wrong part or by damaging the adjacent organs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Gerard
Friday, 22. April 2011, 12:43
Mairtin,

I think there is a serious point here. As I see it, a particular group or groups wish to return to a "fortress catholicism".
I agree 100%.

Gerard
 
They are keen on word selection like this because it reinforces their desire to be in the fortress and point to others who are outside it.

So why play their game by discussing this and similar matters as if they really are important issues?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Patrick
Sunday, 19. November 2006, 15:03
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.
At long last - the Vatican confirms that 'Pro Multis' IS making a comeback:

Gerry, just a reminder from the early part of this thread which was opened by a lay person and has occupied nearly 7 pages of this forum with contributions mainly from the laity. People were concerned about this issue and Patrick correctly, in my view, raised it for discussion.
(Edited by me to remove offensive remark)
Edited by Penfold, Saturday, 23. April 2011, 10:49.
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