Same Song, Different Setting (Catholic Answers Forums)

Recorded here for easy future reference:
(from Catholic Answers forums)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535 And the notion that the "for many" has been translated as "for all" in order to be more ecumenical is also just as ludicrous. There are plenty of scriptural references to Our Lord's sacrifice being "for all." Some choose to accept that Sacrifice and its merits, and others don't. Our Lord died for all. The argument that it is wrong to translate it as "for all" hints at Jansenism.

There must be a lot of Jansenists out there. I have checked Matthew 26:28 (and Mark 14:24) in at least 10 different translations. They all say that Jesus said He was going to shed His blood "for many". I have not seen any translations that state that at the Last Supper Jesus said He was going to shed His blood "for all". Have you?

------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535 This is from www.catholic-legate.com: "The original Biblical texts do not use “for many.” They use the Greek phrase “hoi pollon” which is best translated as “for the masses.” ...

The Catholic Legate is mistaken. First of all, "hoi pollon" would mean, "the many" or "the masses", not "for the masses", and secondly, that phrase does not occur in Matthew 26:28. You can check this out by going to http://www.studylight.org/isb/ . The Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Byzantine Greek Text all have "peri pollwn", "for many", not "for the many". The lack of the definite article in the Greek is a key point in the article by Philip Goddard I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535 Your argument that "for many" implies only a few, or less than all, directly contradicts the clearly-defined teaching of the Church that Our Lord shed His blood for the whole human race, no exceptions. To argue otherwise is to lapse into Jansenism.

My argument is that the phrases "for many" and "for all" are not interchangeable. It is explicitly stated in the Roman catechism that our Lord deliberately said "for many" and not "for all", so I don't think I'm going against Catholic teaching here. Moreover, both the new Mass and the traditional Mass say that our Lord shed His blood "pro multis", not "pro omnibus" or "pro universis", so I don't think that Catholic teaching about what our Lord said at the Last Supper has changed, it is just a matter of a bad translation.

I do not think it is a coincidence that Bible translators consistently translate Our Lord as saying He would shed His blood "for many". I don't think it is a coincidence that pre-Vatican II liturgies as a rule said our Lord would shed His blood "for many". In a few liturgies, these words are omitted, but there is never the claim that He said He sheds His blood "for all" on Calvary. The teaching and practice of the Church through the centuries is consistent on this point, and it is not what you think.

------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535 Furthermore, Pope Paul VI specifically declared that the use "for all" is a perfectly orthodox form of consecration. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html ... Here's what Pope Paul VI ruled: ... Reply: The variant involved is fully justified ...

These are, in fact, the words of an unnamed individual writing in the January, 1970 issue of Notitiae, not the words of Pope Paul VI.

------

ThomasMore1535 is quite a speedy writer. At this point, he has four more posts directed at me that I have not replied to, plus a fifth directed at someone else in the same thread.