FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
"For all" versus "For many" - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: "For all" versus "For many" (/showthread.php?tid=72295)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


"For all" versus "For many" - Catherine - 05-24-2015

I've been doing some thinking about the Roman canon and how there seems to be variation in how the Eucharistic Prayer is said at the NO mass. At the NO parish where I grew up, the same priest has been there for almost 20 years, and he would say, "For you and for all." He still does, from what I hear. However, at other NO parishes we've attended, the priest says, "For you and for many." I have a copy of the Ave Maria manual of Catholic devotions printed in 1942, and the Eucharistic prayer printed there says, "For many." Therefore, I would think translating "pro multis" as "for many" isn't exactly a new idea. However, my top Startpage searches includes a version that says "For many."

I don't know if the approved language before the new translation of the NO ever included "for all," and from what I've read, there seems to have been multiple "approved" versions of the Eucharistic prayer that could be used in the NO. I do know that this is contrary to the new translation, though. We asked the priest about it, and his reply was that Jesus came to save everyone, not just a select "many." This priest has been very vocal about his disapproval of the new translation, even devoting homilies to it, so the disobedience is intentional methinks. My husband is convinced that since he is changing the actual words of the mass, the consecration is invalid. I know that even if the priest has the blackest sin on his soul or holds heretical views, the mass is valid by virtue of his office as long as it's said properly. However, what happens if they start changing the words, particularly the canon?

Most of you might say, "Just go to the Extraordinary Form!" We almost always do. However, this upcoming weekend, my nephew is getting confirmed at this particular parish. My family (husband's side) is in a lot of leadership positions at this parish (parish council, choir director, mass coordinator, catechists) and will be very upset and embarrassed if we don't come. We're pretty much obliged to go to keep the peace, and I think it's important to be there on this important day for our nephew. My husband says he'll just not receive communion since he believes it's not validly consecrated. I'm not sure I disagree or agree with him, but I know when in doubt it's best to do the most conservative thing. What do you fishies think? Any clerics in the house who could provide input?


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - AntoniusMaximus - 05-24-2015

I ain't no fancy linguist, but pro multis is more accurately translated as "for many."  That being said the lameduck ICEL translation from the 70s and a travesty of scholarship did translate it as "for all" if my memory does recollect.  In fact the Gospel uses "for many" whereas Paul tend to use "for all" 

A priest that I was on a retreat with, berated traditionalists because we don't know what makes it invalid.  Needless to say, that priest's Mass was full of abuses of which I have never seen before and hope will never see again.  Now I have noticed older priests (indeed the average age is past 68), who after 30 plus years of saying the first translation of the Novus Ordo, will just revert to using the old translation out of habit, which I can't really fault the priest and don't think of it as being abuse, a lapse of judgment but not something that makes it invalid.  It is extremely telling after saying EPII or EPIII for most of their Masses, that when they go say EPI (i.e. Roman Canon), they struggle mightily with it. 

This priest in question could just be a stubborn, I think most priests got so used to the lameduck, travesty of scholarship translation and it's Dr. Seuss vocabulary that they will throw fits because it causes them to do extra work. 

My opinion (which doesn't matter and doesn't qualify as anything but a few thoughts) is that it takes much to make the Eucharist invalid, for all/for many is on the bottom of the list.  Gender neutrality, clear promotion of heresy (I wouldn't say translation issue qualifies as much as we want it to), clearly changing rites, lay consecrators are more serious in my book.  Needless to say, in the ideal Church, the words should be the translation that has been issued by the Church, and the performance of the liturgy according to the rite prescribed is a sign of both fidelity to God and fidelity to the Church and to his bishop, after all the Liturgy isn't for him.  And when you consider that all the priest has to do is read the black and do the red, it should be a cinch.  But Pride is a six headed beast.


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Renatus Frater - 05-24-2015

I've seen a video on youtube of an FSSP priest relating his experience with this—he says that a woman was so angry with the new translation that she suggested for them to have Masses with the old translation alongside the new translation :LOL: The irony!

I don't see any problem with using “for all”. In Mark Jesus says it is shed for many/all (Matthew: for the remission of sins), so, if it is “for all” all it says is that the blood is shed for all, which is true. Whether everybody will accept it is another issue altogether.
But of course, the question of the precise meaning is important even if the other suggested meaning is valid (that is, we might interpret a truth from a sentence that does not makes reference to that truth). This could be a hard hermeneutical job, and its up to the Church to decide it (we might ask ourselves if in the Greek we can get a bit more insight).

About validity, I don't know. That is the form of the sacrament and changing it might not be a good idea. But the bread is consecrated, anyway. Of course, we shouldn't participate in abuses, but as you must go for your family I don't see any other way.
If you don't want to commune then don't commune. That decision would be hard for me (and I go through this whenever I have the opportunity to sneak into Church), because imagine if you die and you have to explain to Jesus that you didn't participate in the sacrifice of the Mass or had communion with Him because of some petty thing (especially if the NOM is otherwise decent).


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Credidi Propter - 05-25-2015

(05-24-2015, 11:44 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I don't see any problem with using “for all”. In Mark Jesus says it is shed for many/all (Matthew: for the remission of sins), so, if it is “for all” all it says is that the blood is shed for all, which is true. Whether everybody will accept it is another issue altogether.
But of course, the question of the precise meaning is important even if the other suggested meaning is valid (that is, we might interpret a truth from a sentence that does not makes reference to that truth). This could be a hard hermeneutical job, and its up to the Church to decide it (we might ask ourselves if in the Greek we can get a bit more insight).

There are several problems with using "for all" in the Mass.  The first problem is that it is not the approved translation and that using it is an act of disobedience.  I understand people make mistakes, so I'm all for being patient.  Just the same, priests should be especially careful around this part of the Mass, and if the priests I know who are over 80 can do it, so can the rest of them.  A mistake is a mistake, but intentional disobedience is intentional disobedience and priests have made a promise to be obedient to their bishop and his successors, and bishops have made a promise to be obedient to the Pope.

The second problem is that it is not an accurate translation of the Latin.  If people want to dig into Greek, Aramaic,  Hebrew, or other ancient languages for scripture study, that's fine, however, in the Latin Rite, the Mass is in Latin, the Divine Office is in Latin, the Church's documents are in Latin.  Latin is the language of the Church.  The Second Vatican Council allowed for the liturgy and sacraments to be celebrated in vernacular languages, but even it was conducted in Latin, and said the language was to be retained.  Even the Novus Ordo is officially published by the Vatican in Latin.  Even the Jubilate Deo chants- released by the Vatican in 1974- are in Latin.  The Latin text of the part of the Mass in question says "pro multis."  That is translated "for many," or "for the many."  The Church recognized this and other areas of inaccuracy, and requested that the vernacular texts used at Mass be revised.  That revision has been made and implemented- now, it is to be obeyed.

Another problem is that this translation of the Mass was unprecedented.  Side-by-side translations of the 1962, 1954, 1945, and earlier missals (such as found in personal missals for lay people) translated it "for many."  Even the Book of Common Prayer says "for many."  Even the current Presbyterian liturgy doesn't go so far as to say "for all," rather, they just skip that part entirely.  Considering some of the theology popularized in the 20th century, I think it's safe to assume that shifting from "for many" to "for all" meant something.


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - xandratax - 05-25-2015

I recently read the following in a book called The Mass and the Saints, which quotes Saint Albert:

Quote:It is asked, 'Why did he not say 'for all'?'' Some reply that while the blood of Christ truly suffices for all, yet since not all but many are saved, he said 'for many' rather than 'for all.' And this reply is good and Catholic. But one who considers our Lord's words more closely may see that 'for many' signifies more than 'for all.' For 'many' signifies a multitude, which may increase indefinitely. But 'all' would indicate some complete group; and this would not express the fact that the Blood would also suffice for something greater than this total group of people.

When I read that it made perfect sense to me. It is, however, very nuanced, and understandable how someone could get confused. Regardless, a priest, who dedicated years of study to learning the mass and the Gospels, theoretically shouldn't be oblivious to the difference. But seeing the state of seminaries and the Church today, it is not surprising that such problems arise. Especially in this day and age, I can hardly imagine you being rebuked or punished in Eternity for taking communion from a priest who, for whatever reasons of negligence of ignorance, said 'for all' instead of 'for many.' The fact that you even go out of your way to seek the truth about this matter shows that your heart is in the right place.


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Zea mays - 05-25-2015

benedict fixed  this in 2011.




Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Oldavid - 05-25-2015

If Jesus died (shed His Blood) "for all" (He is God, remember) then all would be "saved". No distinction between the sinner and the saint.

He died for all that would have it... just a many out of the multitude.


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Renatus Frater - 05-25-2015

(05-25-2015, 04:40 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(05-24-2015, 11:44 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I don't see any problem with using “for all”. In Mark Jesus says it is shed for many/all (Matthew: for the remission of sins), so, if it is “for all” all it says is that the blood is shed for all, which is true. Whether everybody will accept it is another issue altogether.
But of course, the question of the precise meaning is important even if the other suggested meaning is valid (that is, we might interpret a truth from a sentence that does not makes reference to that truth). This could be a hard hermeneutical job, and its up to the Church to decide it (we might ask ourselves if in the Greek we can get a bit more insight).

There are several problems with using "for all" in the Mass.  The first problem is that it is not the approved translation and that using it is an act of disobedience.  I understand people make mistakes, so I'm all for being patient.  Just the same, priests should be especially careful around this part of the Mass, and if the priests I know who are over 80 can do it, so can the rest of them.  A mistake is a mistake, but intentional disobedience is intentional disobedience and priests have made a promise to be obedient to their bishop and his successors, and bishops have made a promise to be obedient to the Pope.

The second problem is that it is not an accurate translation of the Latin.  If people want to dig into Greek, Aramaic,  Hebrew, or other ancient languages for scripture study, that's fine, however, in the Latin Rite, the Mass is in Latin, the Divine Office is in Latin, the Church's documents are in Latin.  Latin is the language of the Church.  The Second Vatican Council allowed for the liturgy and sacraments to be celebrated in vernacular languages, but even it was conducted in Latin, and said the language was to be retained.  Even the Novus Ordo is officially published by the Vatican in Latin.  Even the Jubilate Deo chants- released by the Vatican in 1974- are in Latin.  The Latin text of the part of the Mass in question says "pro multis."  That is translated "for many," or "for the many."  The Church recognized this and other areas of inaccuracy, and requested that the vernacular texts used at Mass be revised.  That revision has been made and implemented- now, it is to be obeyed.

Another problem is that this translation of the Mass was unprecedented.  Side-by-side translations of the 1962, 1954, 1945, and earlier missals (such as found in personal missals for lay people) translated it "for many."  Even the Book of Common Prayer says "for many."  Even the current Presbyterian liturgy doesn't go so far as to say "for all," rather, they just skip that part entirely.  Considering some of the theology popularized in the 20th century, I think it's safe to assume that shifting from "for many" to "for all" meant something.

Yes, sure, I actually acknowledged almost all of these points in what I said above, except that I don't know what is the most precise translation because I'm no linguist and I didn't know the history.

(05-25-2015, 07:56 AM)Oldavid Wrote: If Jesus died (shed His Blood) "for all" (He is God, remember) then all would be "saved". No distinction between the sinner and the saint.

He died for all that would have it... just a many out of the multitude.

So... Limited atonement? You Calvinist!




Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Oldavid - 05-25-2015

Quote: So... Limited atonement? You Calvinist!
We're not going to be friends, are we, RF?

The slightest Venial Sin demands an infinite atonement because it is an offence to infinite goodness. No sin, however trivial it might seem to us who are drowning in sins, can be atoned by us mere mortals.

No sin, however great or "trivial", can be forgiven without the infinite recompense offered by the Man-God.

Some simply refuse to accept the gift... but "the many" do accept... but "all" do not.


Re: "For all" versus "For many" - Renatus Frater - 05-25-2015

(05-25-2015, 09:59 AM)Oldavid Wrote:
Quote: So... Limited atonement? You Calvinist!
We're not going to be friends, are we, RF?

The slightest Venial Sin demands an infinite atonement because it is an offence to infinite goodness. No sin, however trivial it might seem to us who are drowning in sins, can be atoned by us mere mortals.

No sin, however great or "trivial", can be forgiven without the infinite recompense offered by the Man-God.

Some simply refuse to accept the gift... but "the many" do accept... but "all" do not.

I guess not.

You said that the shedding of blood for all means that all would be saved. That's simply a confusion between the sufficiency of the sacrifice and the efficiency of it. Jesus did die for everybody, but only a multitude will accept it. You affirm this now, but you denied it earlier.