| 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 (528 Views) | |
| Gerard | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 08:36 Post #106 |
|
Penfold, I do have an anti clericalism approach and make no apologies for it. I know many clerics who I like and admire but even they are not free from the clericalist culture, perhaps because of the pervasiveness of that culture in the Catholic Church. Please note it is the culture I rail against. BUT, my stance on this issue of fortress (I usually use the word ghetto) culture I do not see as particularly anti clerical and dont see anti clericalism in my recent posts on this thread. Happy to have you point out where they are anti clerical. They are anti reactionary, anti return to fortress catholicism. The group or groups I referred to were probably those who call themselves traditionalist. And I tend to see this group as more lay than not. There are some high profile clerics among them but the whole group is small the majority of lay are not traditionalist and the majority of clergy are not traditionalist. For the moment, the minority groups won the battle over the translation. To do so the Pope had to sack the ICEL, which was essentially clerics, and replace it with placemen (also essentially clerics). This was a battle between groups and not a battle between lay and clergy. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Saturday, 23. April 2011, 12:21.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 09:53 Post #107 |
![]()
|
Fair point will do, |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 10:04 Post #108 |
|
Not trying to speak for Gerry but I see a distinct difference between anti-clericalism and anti-cleric. I'm personally happy to be described as the former as I am totally opposed to the way that every aspect our Church, spiritual and non-spiritual, is exclusively dominated a single sex hierarchy, particularly by the disastrous control that is still exercised by a small cadre of old men in the Roman Curia. I am certainly not anti-cleric, however, I have made clear on many occasions my utter respect for and admiration of those individuals who give their lives totally to God. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 10:51 Post #109 |
![]()
|
Gerry my apologies I have edited the earlier post. You are correct it was uncalled for and distracting from the topic. Mairtin I think you make a valid distinction. |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 11:01 Post #110 |
|
Volui, I remain and expect to remain to believe that "ALL" is the correct word despite its Latin and/or other sources. "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" I'm not disputing the literal or 'natural' translation - I'm disputing whether it is the correct expression of why Jesus Christ came on earth! "for many" gives me the impression that Jesus Christ came on earth to redeem a select number of people. However I shall try to curb my zeal to be repetitive. (Do I hear "Thank Goodness" from the back row?) |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 12:20 Post #111 |
|
Thanks Penfold, I will do same. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 14:32 Post #112 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The only contribution I can make is to discuss my interpretatio, as a lay person who does not understand Latin and is far from being well versed in theology, my own interpretation of the words "many" and "all". Whatever the linguist/theologians say, I stick to my belief that Jesus died in order to make salvation to available to all, and some individuals, by their own use of free will, turn down the "offer". To put it crudely, our local supermarket has an item on special offer, available to all. I elect not to buy because I do not want the item. The offer was made to all, not to many. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. April 2011, 14:59 Post #113 |
![]()
|
All may avail of the offer but since some will not take it sadly not all will receive the full benefit, but we should take consolation that many will. |
![]() |
|
| James | Tuesday, 26. April 2011, 10:41 Post #114 |
|
James
|
This is quite a good analogy to my thinking. It makes me think that sometimes we look in the wrong places at these type of discussions. The ALL or the MANY !!. And then we have the MANY or the FEW as well in scripture Not mentioned yet but still related as is the ALL and THE MANY in similar ways. I like this parable as it gives room for thought. http://www.gotquestions.org/many-called-few-chosen.html Edited by James, Tuesday, 26. April 2011, 14:27.
|
![]() |
|
| Deacon Robert | Monday, 2. May 2011, 16:02 Post #115 |
|
The New Testament contains two traditions of the words that Jesus spoke when he instituted the Eucharist. The older tradition is found in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Writing within one generation of the Last Supper itself, Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 11:23-26 that he is passing on to others what he himself has received. Already by the time that Paul wrote this letter, the words of institution had become placed into a formula that made it easy to pass them on from one generation to the next. The second tradition is found in Mark’s gospel. Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark when he records the words of institution in his gospel. Luke depends on the same tradition that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians........... ............In the new translation, by returning to a more accurate rendering of Jesus’ words and no longer saying “for all,” but “for many,” we return to the constant way that the Church over the centuries has translated Jesus’ words over the chalice. Except for the present Missal now in use for just two generations, the canon of the Latin rite and all the anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian or in the Slavic languages, have used the verbal equivalent of for many and not for all in their respective languages. By faithfully keeping for many in the words of consecration, the new missal is not denying the universal salvific will of Jesus who died for all. Rather, the new missal is returning us to the Last Supper and helping us to recapture the inner dynamism of Jesus’ own words. In giving the Eucharist, Jesus is identifying himself as the Suffering Servant. He is calling us as individuals to the obedience of faith that joins us to the New Covenant. Thus, the expression for many reminds us of the personal choice that we make to be one with Jesus and truly be his Church each time we celebrate the Eucharist. complete text at: http://www.patersondiocese.org/ |
|
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Monday, 2. May 2011, 16:27 Post #116 |
|
"the new missal is returning us to the Last Supper" Deacon: I am happy to go along with whatever is done in respect of 'for all' or 'for many'. By cross referencing with the Last Supper, do you mean that this relationship regarding the wording is for Catholics - who are the many and not the all? PJD |
![]() |
|
| Deacon Robert | Monday, 2. May 2011, 17:51 Post #117 |
|
PJD, Did you read the whole text? I only transmitted the first and last of it. I am not the author, my Bishop is. |
|
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Monday, 2. May 2011, 18:06 Post #118 |
|
A few days ago, on this thread, I asked if there were any nuances to the Greek word polloi. I read the full article Robert. Thanks. I got my answer:
Its a translation problem. Classic. Its a choice - choose the closest word or choose the closest meaning. I am impressed that the Bish was honest enough to include this fact. In all the material I have seen so far explaining the new translation it has been pure and utter propaganda. Half truths, with as much selectively missed out as selectively put in. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Monday, 2. May 2011, 18:52 Post #119 |
|
"PJD, Did you read the whole text? I only transmitted the first and last of it." Sorry Deacon, have to admit I did not read it all. Never mind Gerry seems to have saved the day for me - see above. Thanks, PJD |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 2. May 2011, 23:52 Post #120 |
|
It is not quite a translation problem. The only "original" we have is the Greek "pollois" which means "for many". Since we do not have the semitic original, we cannot know whether the conjecture about ambiguity is correct or not. It is, however, a neat solution to the conundrum. But it raises the usual question of what we mean when we say that Scripture is the Word of God. How many other Greek versions of a lost Aramaic (probably oral) original should we be on the look out for? Is the Greek text reliable in detail or is it at best a general guide to what was said and done? |
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| 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