"For all" versus "For many"
#11
(05-25-2015, 10:34 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Jesus did die for everybody, but only a multitude will accept it. You affirm this now, but you denied it earlier.
Never, ever!
Reply
#12
(05-25-2015, 09:33 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(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!

LOL

Actually, we were taught something very similar when the new translation rolled out in 2011. I think the Calvanist theory is that God choses who "the many" are, but the Church is trying to say is that "the many" are those that accept Christ and are redeemed - which is not all.

Like Oldavid suggests, "the all" wouldn't make a distinction between sinner and saint. I think that's very important to keep in mind, and you do wonder...

(05-25-2015, 04:40 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: 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.
Reply
#13
The bottom line is that the words pro multis in Latin mean for many, not for all. This was supposed to be a faithful translation of the Latin text, and thus translating pro multis as if it were pro omnibus was wrong. I'm glad it's been fixed. Did the change invalidate the Mass? I'm not prepared to go that far, but it was certainly troubling.
Reply
#14
(05-24-2015, 11:44 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: 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).

This was my main concern. Similar to needing valid matter for the consecration of the Eucharist (like no honey wheat pita bread hosts or cupcakes), you need valid form, so how much can that form change before it's invalid? Knowing now about the ICEL translation, I am a little less worried. If it was the standard for many years before it was fixed, I wouldn't think the corrected translation would invalidate the previous, or else all previous consecrations using ICEL translations might have been invalid. I'm extra sensitive to abuses and sacrileges at this particular parish, because unfortunately there have been many that have happened there. It's a sad, long story, and it makes me think too hard about some things.

Interesting perspective about explaining to Jesus why I didn't commune. I guess my secondary concern was what does a good Catholic do if the host is invalidly consecrated? Deciding to abstain would be hard for me too, but I wasn't sure what else to do if that was the case.

(05-25-2015, 05:16 AM)xandratax Wrote: 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.

Thank you for this quote! Beautiful explanation.

(05-25-2015, 02:22 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The bottom line is that the words pro multis in Latin mean for many, not for all. This was supposed to be a faithful translation of the Latin text, and thus translating pro multis as if it were pro omnibus was wrong. I'm glad it's been fixed. Did the change invalidate the Mass? I'm not prepared to go that far, but it was certainly troubling.

Yes I still find it troubling. They obviously already knew "for many" was the most accurate translation. I agree with PrarieMom and Credidi Propter- the change from "for many" to "for all" probably did mean something. I'd hope it wasn't something as sinister as a nod to universalist ecumenism. Perhaps they were just trying to be "pastoral" and make it easier for the laypeople to understand, or they were worried that people living in Protestant cultures might misconstrue it as endorsing Calvinist ideas.

Most people I know who hate the new translation (and coincidentally the TLM) say the old translation was easier for "regular people" to understand and relate to. Why use "consubstantial" when few people know what it means? Why use "for many" when people might get offended or misunderstand? Why use Latin, which no one speaks? It's a little insulting. When you make assumptions about your sheep and dumb things down accordingly, might you accidentally create the conditions you were trying to avoid? If you can't explain it so that people properly understand it, you either need to study it more or you don't truly believe it yourself. It makes me salty, but maybe I'm just a crazy millennial.

I thank you all for your responses! I found out that our Archbishop will be saying the mass, so it won't be a problem anyways  :LOL:
Reply
#15
(05-27-2015, 02:29 AM)Catherine Wrote: Why use "for many" when people might get offended or misunderstand? Why use Latin, which no one speaks? It's a little insulting. When you make assumptions about your sheep and dumb things down accordingly, might you accidentally create the conditions you were trying to avoid? If you can't explain it so that people properly understand it, you either need to study it more or you don't truly believe it yourself. It makes me salty, but maybe I'm just a crazy millennial.

I thank you all for your responses! I found out that our Archbishop will be saying the mass, so it won't be a problem anyways  :LOL:
What a curious mixture of perceptions.
Reply
#16
If you come across something that you do not understand, is your first impulse to do away with it? Where did you ever get that idea?

Did Sts. Teresa of Avila or Therese of Lisieux have that attitude towards Latin, neither of whom could speak or understand it? What about St. Padre Pio or John Vianney, both of whom had very difficult times getting through seminary because of the Latin formulas of the prayers? Did they ever once say, "Get rid of Latin to make this whole thing easier and more understandable"? What about the thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of Saints throughout history who have not understood more than a sentence of Latin if at all—did any of them at any point complain that the liturgy should be understandable?

Strange notions that things should be understandable or even can be understandable. The day I come across a liturgy featuring a translation that makes it understandable is the day I no longer have the liturgy. Liturgy isn't Kantian philosophy, but it isn't reading a microwave instruction manual either (which can be complicated all things considered).

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/05...ow-to.html
Reply
#17
(05-28-2015, 12:19 AM)richgr Wrote: If you come across something that you do not understand, is your first impulse to do away with it? Where did you ever get that idea?

I think you misunderstood- I totally agree with you. It's the people in my life who dislike the new NOM translation and the extraordinary form who are saying that. To clarify what I meant, I'm tired of people saying that we should keep things easy to understand and non-offensive. It's an excuse that insults the intelligence and sincerity of many Catholics. It's an attitude causing problems way beyond swapping "for all" for "for many." It's not the only reason for the mess the Church is in. But how can people develop their understanding of the faith if you're shielding them from the "hard parts?" If you're anticipating that they will be bored by the mystery and offended by the truth, and therefore change things like the mass, you're not giving the faithful a chance. You might accidentally end up getting what you expect.
Reply
#18
(05-28-2015, 04:14 AM)Catherine Wrote:
(05-28-2015, 12:19 AM)richgr Wrote: If you come across something that you do not understand, is your first impulse to do away with it? Where did you ever get that idea?

I think you misunderstood- I totally agree with you. It's the people in my life who dislike the new NOM translation and the extraordinary form who are saying that. To clarify what I meant, I'm tired of people saying that we should keep things easy to understand and non-offensive. It's an excuse that insults the intelligence and sincerity of many Catholics. It's an attitude causing problems way beyond swapping "for all" for "for many." It's not the only reason for the mess the Church is in. But how can people develop their understanding of the faith if you're shielding them from the "hard parts?" If you're anticipating that they will be bored by the mystery and offended by the truth, and therefore change things like the mass, you're not giving the faithful a chance. You might accidentally end up getting what you expect.

It's all symptomatic of a profound loss of confidence in the power of the Catholic Faith in all its externals to open the hearts of moderns. What happened after the Council was the wholesale lack of confidence in our Faith as it's been expressed for thousands of years to captivate people. It was basically a papally led apostasy from our patrimony, and a dumbing down and rewrite of, well, everything. There's practically nothing whatsoever that wasn't made over in the 20 th century; it's roots were perhaps in the breviary reform of Pius X,carried on by Pius XII in his new Holy Week and new Propers for the Assumption, and taken to completion under the tragic reigns of  John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII. Everything,including the very words of the Lord Himself, were changed.

A Church that turns around and publicly disowns it's patrimony is a laughingstock that cannot be taken seriously. This is the heart of the issue. Returning to a proper translation of pro multiswas one small step back in the direction of our patrimony that was so rudely taken from us by professional churchmen.
Reply
#19
The ecumenical (and thus heterodox) implication is unfortunately all too likely though one could reasonably presume an unspoken context of however narrow one wishes to those who desire salvation (and thus genuinely repent of their sins, if not practice the Catholic Faith and/or are present at the Mass).  The Novus Ordo is not attempting to explicitly teach or even express theology which is taken for granted in the Usus Antiquor as much as it's 'just" the adoration and worship of God.  I've always said that the Novus Ordo only makes "sense" coming from the context of the TLM.

That same ecumenism is present not only in the Protestant... elements ("and also with you" in place of "Et cum spiritu tu" also jumps immediately to mind) but also to the Orthodox with the explicit epiklesis.  All disregard over a thousand years of theology and apologetics of the Roman Church.
Reply
#20
(05-28-2015, 05:31 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: It's all symptomatic of a profound loss of confidence in the power of the Catholic Faith in all its externals to open the hearts of moderns. What happened after the Council was the wholesale lack of confidence in our Faith as it's been expressed for thousands of years to captivate people. It was basically a papally led apostasy from our patrimony, and a dumbing down and rewrite of, well, everything. There's practically nothing whatsoever that wasn't made over in the 20 th century; it's roots were perhaps in the breviary reform of Pius X,carried on by Pius XII in his new Holy Week and new Propers for the Assumption, and taken to completion under the tragic reigns of  John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII. Everything,including the very words of the Lord Himself, were changed.

A Church that turns around and publicly disowns it's patrimony is a laughingstock that cannot be taken seriously. This is the heart of the issue. Returning to a proper translation of pro multiswas one small step back in the direction of our patrimony that was so rudely taken from us by professional churchmen.
I profoundly agree as long as there are a couple of commas missing from the above.

I would go further and say that it is all a result of the "doctrinaire" assumption of Darwinist "evolution" that assumes that everything is in a state of "becoming"... including the Christian Faith. Modernism is nothing but the application of the Hegelian dialectic of "survival of the fittest"... the competition between the old and the "new".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)