| 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: |
| Did Jesus Die For Many Or For All? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 29. October 2006, 14:17 (529 Views) | |
| Penfold | Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 22:09 Post #91 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 22:47 Post #92 |
|
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!" |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 23:47 Post #93 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Wednesday, 20. April 2011, 23:51 Post #94 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 00:16 Post #95 |
![]()
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! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 00:42 Post #96 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 10:23 Post #97 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 11:54 Post #98 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 15:53 Post #99 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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! | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 16:44 Post #100 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 21. April 2011, 17:53 Post #101 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Friday, 22. April 2011, 12:43 Post #102 |
|
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). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Friday, 22. April 2011, 14:24 Post #103 |
![]()
|
The church is a refuge not a prison where all may find sanctuary form the evil of the World.
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 07:46 Post #104 |
|
I agree 100%.
So why play their game by discussing this and similar matters as if they really are important issues? |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 08:10 Post #105 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








3:42 PM Jul 11