The Church in Turkey

The Patriarch and the rest of the Turkish Christians are in a very tough situation:

From popeandpatriarch.com:
...Constantinople's Greeks were spared from annihilation, but their ranks thinned out of fear and harassment in the new order. Subsequent pogroms, notably the Turkish government-sponsored 1955 pogroms, had the effect of progressively reducing the numbers of native-born Constantinopolitan Christians. Concurrent with this, the Turkish state pursued an active program of expropriation which itself abetted a vicious circle: if a church property fell into disuse, the state seized it...

From Newsweek:
Although the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople does not exercise the jurisdictional and doctrinal authority in world Orthodoxy that the papacy exercises in world Catholicism, it does enjoy a historic status as "first among equals" in Orthodoxy, plays an important role in coordinating Orthodox affairs globally and is regarded as the spiritual center of global Orthodoxy by Orthodox believers. Yet it is Turkish law, not the canons of the Orthodox Church, that determines who is eligible to be elected ecumenical patriarch, and Turkish law limits the pool of possible candidates to Turkish citizens living in Turkey. As a recent memorandum from the Ecumenical Patriarchate put it, "the result of these restrictions is that in the not so distant future the Ecumenical Patriarchate may not be able to elect a Patriarch."

From Inside the Vatican:
"Then it will be hard to find a successor for Patriarch Bartholomew, in time to come?"

"Very hard," he replies. "Because there is a law in Turkey that the head of the patriarchate must be a Turkish citizen, and there are only about 2,000 Orthodox who remain, and only a handful of men who might be qualified to be patriarch, perhaps five."

From a speech in the British House of Lords:
Once Antioch was one of the great cities of the world; the place where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. For many centuries it was the hub of an important Syrian Christian culture. Now it is simply a village in Turkey ... caught between the Turkish Army on the one hand and the Kurdish PKK on the other. They have dwindled to barely a few hundred families.

From the Syriac magazine Tebayn:
Exodus shows pictures of the village of Hassana in SE Turkey. Its last inhabitants were evicted from their native soil by the Turkish army in 1993.

Pope and Patriarch

Our Pope has gone to visit Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople, and was present today for a Divine Liturgy, where the Ecumenical Patriarch gave a very good homily:

...Therefore, we kneel in humility and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious Name we bear and yet at the same time whose seamless garment we have divided. We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day may come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness.

...Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning.

...The only appropriate response to this showering of divine benefits and compassionate mercy is gratitude (eucharistia). Indeed, thanksgiving and glory are the only fitting response of human beings to their Creator. For to Him belong all glory, honor, and worship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; now and always, and to the ages of ages.

Fr. Z wants to talk about "consubstantialem Patri"...

... but some of us are not through with pro multis, yet.

(Guiding a discussion amongst bloggers is like herding cats).
Comments from RBrown in bold, my replies in normal font:

“The mistranslation of pro multis into for all does not change the meaning of the consecretory words, which are the words that signify the matter—Hic est calix sanguinis mei (that which signifies) and wine (the matter which is to be signified).

NB: In the account of the institution of the Eucharist found in Luke and St Paul (1st Cor), there is no mention in the consecration of Blood of pro anyone. Are we to say that Luke and Paul were saying invalid masses?”

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catechism taught:
The form of this Sacrament is the very words of Christ, “This is My Body,” and “This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.” According to St. Thomas, the consecration includes the mistranslated words.

St. Paul and St. Luke have pro vobis (“for you”). But neither claims to be providing a missal. They do not claim to be providing a complete transcript of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, either. They do include some of His words, and pro universis is not among them, so neither provides justification for putting the words “for all” into our Lord’s mouth at the consecration.

Comment by Anonymous — 21 November 2006 @ 8:19 pm

+++

RBrown, Are you saying that I have inaccurately quoted the Catechism of St. Thomas? I provided a link to a translation, and quoted from the first paragraph, where St. Thomas teaches that the form for the consecration of the wine is “This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.”

He teaches exactly the same in the article from the Summa which you quoted. Just before the part you quoted, St. Thomas writes:
Some have maintained that the words “This is the chalice of My blood” alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, “As often as ye shall do this,” ...

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form…

St. Thomas then describes the purpose of of the various words which together constitute the form of the sacrament. Note that he says that all of the words up to and including “remission of sins” are part of the form, not just the part that denotes the change of wine into blood.

In objection 2 of this article St. Thomas considers the possibility that the form is simply the words “This is the chalice of My blood”, without the words that follow, but he rejects this theory.

And please also note objection 1 with its reply, where St. Thomas affirms the longer form as the proper form.

1. The writings of Paul and Luke are part of Revelation, from which any missal is composed.
True enough, but that still does not mean that the Gospel of St. Luke, or St. Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians are themselves missals.

I never justified the use of “for all”. In fact, in an earlier thread…
Good. We agree that “for all” is an incorrect translation of both the Latin and the Greek and ought to be fixed.

Comment by Michael — 22 November 2006 @ 7:03 am

+++

The question, to which I first responded, was whether the use of “for all” renders the Sacrament invalid. My point is that the Pauline-Lukan consecretory formula is evidence that it does not.

Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 are partial quotes of our Lord’s words at the last supper, taken from documents that were not written for use as liturgical texts. It is not self-evident that they are adequate as consecretory formulae.

Even if they are, that merely shows that the words “for many” can be omitted; it does not demonstrate that the words “for all” can be added.

I am not attempting to argue that “for all” renders the consecration invalid. My point is to argue that the words “for all” are part of the consecretory formula of the Novus Ordo as currently translated into English. You said the consecratory words are “Hic est calix sanguinis mei”. St. Thomas by contrast, seems to indicate a longer formula—the same formula, in fact, cited by Pope St. Pius V in the question that Ioannes asked above.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:18 am

+++

To me the best translation is “for the multitude”.

In the comments on another article in Father Z’s blog, someone said that “for the many” in Greek would be περι των πολλων. But Matthew 26:28 in Greek (see here or here) has just περι πολλων. Are you sure that the “the” in your best translation is justified?

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:20 am

+++

ST, III, 78, 1: ...the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, “This is My body,” or, “This is the chalice of My blood.”

What do you say St. Thomas meant when he said in ST, III, 78, 3: “others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, ‘As often as ye shall do this’, ...”?

In that sentence St. Thomas concisely states which words are in the consecration.

In your comments on the 2nd objection, I think you have already agreed that the teaching of St. Thomas is that the form for the consecration extends from “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” to “effundetur in remissionem peccatorum”:
The 2d objection makes two arguments: First, that “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei” is a valid consecration; Second, that those words comprise the entire form. St Thomas only rejects the second argument.

I don’t see in his reply any affirmation that “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” by itself is sufficient, but even if it were, that would be irrelevant since the Novus Ordo consecration has more than that; the rest of the words have to be taken into account. By emphasizing that “for all” or “for many” is part of the consecration, my hope is to emphasize the seriousness and importance of getting these words right.

In ST, III, 78, 3, ad 1, St. Thomas offers the objection that the following is not the proper form: “This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”

In his reply, he uses only the words “This is the chalice of My blood” to stand for the whole expression. That he means the whole expression is evident from the objection he is answering, and from the title of the section (notice the et cetera), and from the paragraphs immediately preceeding this reply, particularly where he says that the substance of the form includes all the words down to but not including “As often as ye shall do this.”

Getting back to article 1, it seems that there too he was using the shorter phrase “This is the chalice of My blood” to stand in for the unwieldy whole. Otherwise, there is a discrepancy between what he says in articles 1 and 3.

It is article 3 that considers the words actually used for the consecration of the wine. Article 1 deals with the question of whether other parts of the Mass and Last Supper ought to be considered part of the consecration.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:30 am

+++

BTW, I am unaware of any catechism written by St Thomas.

According to the translator’s preface found here, the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas is for the most part a collection of sermons the Angelic Doctor delivered in the last year of his life (+ 1274). However, the part we are interested in, the “Explanation of the Seven Sacraments” is the second part of a treatise, “De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis,” which St. Thomas wrote at the request of the Archbishop of Palermo in 1261-62. The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas were used in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as manuals and textbooks for priests and teachers of religion.

“pro multis” is analogical, including two distinct concepts: (1) That Christ died for all (de fide); and (2) that it does not exclude the possibility the number saved is only rather a few (this is the opinion of St Thomas).

I’m not sure how “pro multis” carries the meaning of “for all”, even as a secondary meaning, if you read it as a translation of St. Matthew’s περι πολλων. According to this individual, claiming to hold a PhD in Greek, the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon’s definition of polus runs over two pages, with a variety of synonyms listed, but no “all” or even “multitude”. Similarly, in this article, the author notes that Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon lists many nuances of meaning with examples drawn from a variety of sources, but “all” is not amoung the possible meanings listed for πολλοί.

Thank you for your recommendation of ST, III, 60. I have not read that part of the Summa before, but will.

Comment by Michael — 25 November 2006 @ 7:36 am

+++

Michael: The problem here is that in translating the consecration formula the Church is not intending mainly to translate Scripture. The Church needs to provide a translation of the consecration formula. The Latin liturgical text constitutes its own starting point. The Church needs to consider the Latin text, not a Greek text, read certainly with the twin lenses of Scripture and also Tradition.

Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 November 2006 @ 7:56 am

+++

If the new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin text, as read with the twin lenses of Scripture and Tradition, I will be happy.

We must confess that Jesus is Lord

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.
For one believes with the heart and so is justified,
and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
The Scripture says,
No one who believes in him will be put to shame.
There is no distinction between Jew and Greek;
the same Lord is Lord of all,
enriching all who call upon him.
For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 10:9-13

+++

He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them,
“If any want to become my followers,
let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
For those who want to save their life will lose it,
and those who lose their life for my sake,
and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.
For what will it profit them to gain the whole world
and forfeit their life?
Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation,
of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed
when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 8:34-38

+++

What shall it profit, my brethren,
if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works?
Shall faith be able to save him?

And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
And one of you say to them:
Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
yet give them not those things
that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?

So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

But some man will say: Thou hast faith,
and I have works: shew me thy faith without works;
and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

Thou believest that there is one God.
Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man,
that faith without works is dead?

James 2:14-20

+++

Faith without works and works without faith will both alike be condemned, for he who has faith must offer to the Lord the faith which shows itself in actions. Our father Abraham would not have been counted righteous had he not offered its fruit, his son (c.f. James 2:21; Romans 4:3).

St. Diadochos of Photki
On Spiritual Knowledge

King of the Nations

“Great and wonderful are your works,
Lord God almighty.
Just and true are your ways,
O king of the nations.
Who will not fear you, Lord,
or glorify your name?
For you alone are holy.
All the nations will come
and worship before you,
for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

Revelations 15:3-4

Click here for commentary from Pope Benedict on today's reading.

Harvest Time

Today's Gospel reading:

I, John, looked and there was a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud one who looked like a son of man, with a gold crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Another angel came out of the temple, crying out in a loud voice to the one sitting on the cloud, “Use your sickle and reap the harvest, for the time to reap has come, because the earth’s harvest is fully ripe.” So the one who was sitting on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven who also had a sharp sickle. Then another angel came from the altar, who was in charge of the fire, and cried out in a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Use your sharp sickle and cut the clusters from the earth’s vines, for its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and cut the earth’s vintage. He threw it into the great wine press of God’s fury.

Rev 14:14-19

(The image depicted above, of a woman clothed with the sun and an angel reaping the grapes of wrath, is taken from an icon of The Apocalypse).

+++

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing-fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Matthew 3:11-12

Lowliness befits man

It is characteristic of the soul which consciously senses the love of God always to seek God's glory in every commandment it performs, and to be happy in its low estate. For glory befits God because of His majesty, while lowliness befits man because it unites us with God. If we realize this, rejoicing in the glory of the Lord, we too, like St. John the Baptist, will begin to say unceasingly, 'He must increase, but we must decrease' (cf John 3:30)

St. Diadochos of Photki
On Spiritual Knowledge

+++

When Jesus looked up he saw some wealthy people putting their offerings into the treasury and he noticed a poor widow putting in two small coins. He said, “I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more than all the rest; for those others have all made offerings from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole livelihood.”

Luke 21:1-4

Iesu dulcissime, Redemptor

Act of Dedication of the Human Race to Jesus Christ King

A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who piously recite the Act of Dedication of the Human Race to Jesus Christ King. A plenary indulgence is granted, if it is recited publicly on the feast of our Lord Jesus Christ King.

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before you. We are yours, and yours we wish to be; but to be more surely united with you, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to your Most Sacred Heart. Many indeed have never known you; many, too, despising your precepts, have rejected you. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to your Sacred Heart. Be King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken you, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned you; grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house, lest they die of wretchedness and hunger. Be King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and the unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd. Grant, O Lord, to your Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give tranquility of order to all nations; make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to it be glory and honor for ever. Amen.

Prayer Source: Enchiridion of Indulgences, June 29, 1968

Thanksgiving

Thank You Lord, for the reformation of the new rite of the Mass, and for the restoration of the old. Thank You for the graces You grant Your Church in every age. May we make use of them to the glory of Your holy Name, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, always and forever. Amen.

Cardinal Arinze's Letter

Posted by AJV in the Catholic Answers Forums

Prot. N. 467/05/L

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Excellency in the following terms:

1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. The expression "for many", while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the "many" to whom the text refers.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula "for all" or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, "for many", "per molti", etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

+++

I am very grateful for this letter. If this blog were graced by more than one visitor every six months, it might be imprudent to criticize the letter at all, but protected by obscurity, I think it is safe to raise a reservation.

In light of the comments by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, and other saints of the Church quoted in this blog, I am not convinced that "the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text". Thank God that this question will be one of merely historical and academic interest in the near future! Thank God for the Holy Father, for setting this right!

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Great news from Catholic World News on the pro multis issue.

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. 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.

Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require

• The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
• The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
• The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
• “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
• The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
• In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

+++

Deo gratias, this is the answer to many prayers.

About "pro multis" #3

Next I posted a couple somewhat uncharitable messages to the About "pro multis" thread.

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rykell Who is to say whether Matthew or Luke spoke Jesus's words?

Still using St. Matthew's Gospel to attack the credibility of St. Luke's, and vice versa, I see. Where does either Evangelist claim to be providing a complete transcript of our Lord's words at the Last Supper? St. Luke says our Lord said "for you", St. Matthew says our Lord said "for many", and the Church in its Liturgies says that He said "for you and for many".

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Quote: Originally Posted by MikeDunphy "hoi pollen" means "the many" and is a phrase not found in Matthew 26:28, making it irrelevant to a discussion of the consecration. Sigh! While we'll never agree, even Alex has admitted that it be defined as more than just the words "the many". Many, multitude, populace, masses... And I'm sure Alex will be chiming in here to say that none of these mean more than many to which I don't agree. Again, I'm in good company and happy to be here.

You have missed my point entirely. Any interpretation you choose to give the phrase "hoi pollen" has nothing to do with the meaning of Matthew 26:28, because the phrase does not occur there. I gave you a link to a word by word translation Matthew 26:28 from Greek to English , so you could go see it for yourself.

__________________
when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ ... it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament
- St. Ambrose

+++

And then more speculation than I usually indulge in:

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by boppysbud So are we to assume that Jesus only died for SOME people, but not all? Are we now to become Calvinists? How are we to know who makes it to the predestined, the so called "elect" and who is just out of luck no matter what they do? When I left Protestantism I THOUGHT I was leaving Calvinism far behind. Was I mistaken? If God has already chosen who Jesus died for, and who he did not die for, then why even fool with baptism and going to Mass everything is already "fixed" no matter what we do or do not do.

A common Catholic belief is that God is outside of time and can see the entire history of the universe. He already knows the choices you will freely make. What you do in life matters, because God is a just judge. "The elect" are those who enter heaven, but the phrase does not imply double-predestination. "The elect" enter heaven because God wills what is good for them, and they consent to His will. The damned reject God and He does not force Himself on them.

Perhaps Jesus at the Last Supper refrained from praying for those eventually damned because He did not want to increase their blameworthiness. Perhaps, on the eve of His suffering, He wanted to show His love particularly for those who return His love.

Some say that both the blessed and the damned are surrounded by the same glory of God, but that the experience of God's glory is joyful for some and painful to others, depending on the state of their souls. Maybe when Christ our God pays particular attention to people, they experience His glory more intensely, so it would have been a blessing to the saved for Christ to attend to them, and a mercy to the damned for Christ in some sense to pull away from them.

Please note the maybes and the perhapses. If this doesn't help, I'm sure you can find a better explanation. May God help us to know and love the truth and forgive errors made in good faith.

+++

Notice that the last sentence can be read two different ways.

+++

I very nearly had the last word in this thread. Because of the acrimony of the debate, a moderator closed the thread while I was working on this reply:

Re: About "pro multis"

---

From your first reference:

Quote:

Definition: common people Synonyms: Middle America, commonality, commoners, great unwashed, huddled masses, infrastructure, masses, multitude, plebians, proletariat, rabble, rank and file, riffraff, the common people, the herd, the many, the masses, the working class, vulgus Antonyms: aristocracy, elite

According to your own reference, hoi polloi means the common people, as opposed to the elite. Since hoi polloi does not include the elite, it does not include all people and does not mean all.

Why are you bothering to argue about the meaning of hoi polloi, anyway? If you look up Matthew 26 in the original Greek, you will see Jesus quoted as saying He was shedding His blood περί πολλών, not περί των πολλών, that is, for many, not for the many. You are arguing about a phrase that does not appear in the Gospel passages from which the words of consecration are drawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 From dictionary.com http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi I actually wished they had a better one on-line but dictionary.com will do in this instance although I'm sure someone will challenge its veracity. Netmilsmom wanted dictionary.com, so here it is. Notice the long lenghty list of synonyms. And, I don't believe that you required Alex to give his on-line reference, Netmilsmom. Also, if you notice, Alex has agreed to other definitions than his original. The big argument now is whether the masses, the populace, etc. are all. I think yes, you think no. Got it.

+++

And I had notes for replying to this post:

...However, St. Thomas does indeed describe that "pro multis" can be interpreted in two senses, "for all" and "for many" depending upon if it regards sufficiency or it regards efficacy. ...

My reply:

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the commentaries of St. Thomas on the Sentences of Peter Lombard "furnished the materials and, in great part, the plan for his chief work, the Summa theologica".

That shows in the passages you have cited from his Summa and his Commentary; St. Thomas mentions the same objection in both to our Lord's words "for you and for many", and gives the same replies.

The objection has two parts: (a) if our Blessed Savior spoke of the sufficiency of His sacrifice, He should have said "for all", (b) if He spoke of the efficacy of His sacrifice, He should have just said "for many".

In the Summa, before he gets to his answer to objection 8, in his reply to objection 2 ( S. Th., III, q. 78, art. 3 ad 2), St. Thomas says"mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood". By the "fruits of the Passion", he means what the Passion accomplishes, i.e. its efficacy. This is the same terminology used in the Roman Catechism, quoted ealier in this thread here, here and here.

In his reply to objection 8 in the Summa, and objection 7 in His commentary, St. Thomas justifies our Lord's words by saying that our Lord's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles; not merely in those that receive Sacramentally, but also in those for whom the sacrament is offered. Since St. Thomas justifies our Lord's words by talking about the efficacy of His Sacrifice, it is evident that he believes that our Lord was Himself talking about the efficacy of His sacrifice.

The Angelic Doctor does not say that "for many" can mean "for all"; he explains why Jesus Christ said "for many" instead of "for all".

Summa Objection 8.

Further, as was already observed (48, 2; 49, 3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."

Commentary Objection 7:

"In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others."

Reply to Objection 8.

The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.

Reply to Objection 7.

To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy; and, lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others.

In the last paragraph of post #63, you seem to be presenting the objection that St. Thomas refutes as a view that he holds himself.

+++

If anyone objected that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, I was ready to point to the word-by-word translation from Aramaic available here.

+++

"so that sins may be forgiven" means that our Lord's passion made the forgiveness of sins possible. It does not mean maybe sins will be forgiven and maybe they won't, depending on the individual. The translation is ambiguous. So go back to the Bible. The Douay-Rheims has "unto remission of sins", matching what is printed in the Latin-English Booklet Missal (available here from the Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei). The new American Bible has "for the forgiveness of sins", which, as of 2004, was going to be the wording in the new translation of the Mass.

The Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy

How many of these have you done recently? Out of all fourteen Works of Mercy, I think the fourth and seventh from the second list are the most difficult to accomplish in some way. Stretching the point a little, the fourth can be supported by supporting PNCEA Prison Ministries, an organization that serves the spiritual and religious needs of Catholic inmates in American prisons. Doing something personally would be better, but one can't do everything.

How to do something about #7? Maybe contribute to disaster relief, after a major disaster?

The Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy
1. To admonish sinners.
2. To instruct the ignorant.
3. To counsel the doubtful.
4. To comfort the sorrowful.
5. To bear wrongs patiently.
6. To forgive all injuries.
7. To pray for the living and the dead

The Seven Corporal Works of Mercy
1. To feed the hungry.
2. To give drink to the thirsty.
3. To clothe the naked.
4. To visit and ransom the captives.
5. To harbor the harborless.
6. To visit the sick.
7. To bury the dead

Anglo-Catholics

Heard in the Inn at the End of the World:

Another wouldn't-it-be-great-if-it-were-true net rumor:

According to a comment on Titusonenine, the Pope will this week receive on his desk a document that proposes something akin to an Opus Dei-style personal prelature for disgruntled Anglicans of a Catholic bent. This would allow them to be received into the Catholic Church but retain their Anglican identity, with presumably their (or should I say our?) own priests going with them too. ...

A stumbling block would be the presence of married bishops. Would they be willing to live chastely, for the sake of Church unity?

+++

At the Last Supper, Christ our Savior, through the Holy Spirit, prayed to the Father for the unity of His disciples then and now:

"And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and Thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me."

John 17:20-23

+++

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity. Like the precious ointment on the head, that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron, Which ran down to the skirt of his garment: as the dew of Hermon, which descendeth upon mount Sion. For there the Lord hath commandeth blessing, and life for evermore.

Psalm 133 [132]

Bishop Tod Brown Refuses Holy Communion To A Kneeling Woman

I miss kneeling to receive Holy Communion. People treat our Lord so casually now! In this video, a woman attempts to receive kneeling, as all Roman Catholics did, not that long ago, but Bishop Brown refuses until she stands. What is wrong with showing reverence to our Lord by kneeling?

It is hard to see what is happening, and only a little bit of the exchange can be seen, but watch for a woman wearing a black sweater and a long white skirt, in the far line of people coming up for Communion.


Here is the description that accompanies the video:

Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange
http://www.renewamerica.us/...

Mean Tod Brown
http://closedcafeteria.blog...

There were two videographers, since it was a special Mass. The incident was caught on tape by accident. Watching it I can say that the lady walked up, knelt down and was ready to receive Communion. Bishop Brown immediately grabs her hands (not violently, it seems) and says something - I think I can make out 'scene...up'(a Mexican oompahpah oompapah 'Communion song' drowns out everything else). The lady's own account recounts it like this:

I was sitting on the side of the Church, 3rd row, where Bishop Tod Brown distributed the Holy Eucharist, (in the video, I am the woman with short brown hair and glasses, wearing a black sweater and long white skirt sitting on the opposite side (from the camera) of the aisle in the center of the church) and upon approaching the Bishop to receive, I genuflected, out of reverence for the Sacred Species and remained on one knee to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Bishop Brown refused to give me Holy Communion. Bishop Brown said, "You need to stand up".

I was in shock and didn't move or respond. He then reached out and took hold of my folded hands, attempting to physically pull me to a standing position, and said more sternly, "You need to stand."

I looked up and whispered, quietly and respectfully, "Please, bishop", and he then grabbed my arm, and pulled me, as though to physically pull me up to a standing position (although obscured, you can see where he bends down and extends his right arm to grab mine) as he stated more loudly, "Get up".

Still on one knee, I then asked very quietly and with genuine ignorance, "Why?"

As he stood up straight he responded, very loudly and sternly, "Because THAT'S the way we receive communion. Now, GET UP, you're causing a scene.'

He gives her Communion after she gets up. From viewing the tape, I have to say that if he had given her Communion right away, there wouldn't even have been any delay, she wasn't putting on a show or anything. Even after he grabbed her twice, she bowed her head briefly, got up, received Communion and left right away.

From the Vatican (Congregation for the Divine Liturgy):
Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

About "pro multis" #2

Archive of more posts from the latest Catholic Answers Forum thread on pro multis:

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 I've said it before. I've NEVER heard a liberal say that all men were saved based on the "for all" translation in the canon. I've heard a myriad of reasons why liberals think all men are saved but that ain't one of them. So, who needs the commentary. You know all men aren't saved, right? The only people who bring this up is the occaisional traditionalist (note I didn't in anyway say all traditionalists). I even doubt you beloved Bugnini has said this.

How about this blogger?

Quote:

The certainty is that if this is what the Church teaches, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I am not among "many." In my entire life I have never been on the winning team, and the Calvinists have already devised the tests for those who will make it and those who won't--I am in the latter category. If this change comes about, and it sounds certain that it will, I will be reminded at every Mass of my exclusion from those for whom Jesus came. I will accept this as the teaching of the Church because I know the Church is the guardian of the truth...

Apparently, this person has not previously heard, or has not believed, that there will be a Judgment, when some will be saved and others damned.

For the above-quoted blogger, fixing the words of consecration will cause him to start worrying about damnation. Why would that be?

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsorama Ha, well, you haven't arrived in blogdom if you haven't been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I'm not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don't see how that's controversial, and it's certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

Thanks for adding that last paragraph of explanation in your blog entry. It still leaves me wondering what you mean, though. You say you and your correspondent "would like to see the correct translation in the Mass, one that derives from the literal sense of Scripture". What Jesus said literally at the Last Supper is that He would shed His blood "for many". You seem to be indicating, however, that you want to take what Jesus said literally at some other time, paraphrase it, and then pretend our Lord literally said that paraphrase at the Last Supper.

Jesus said what He said. The traditional teaching of the Church is that Jesus was talking about those who would actually be saved when He said He was shedding His blood "for many". You can read this in the section of the Roman Catechism which Giuseppe quoted. You can also see this, if you read the gospel record of our Lord's words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:20-35, Mark 14:18-25, Luke 22:14-39, and especially John 13-17, where our Lord is quoted at greater length). Jesus speaks to and for his faithful followers, not the world at large:
"I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me ... I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you".(John 17:9,20,21)

The Roman Catechism says "the many" refers to the elect. At the Last Supper our Lord talks about how the elect should act and what they should expect:
Let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant (Luke 22:26)
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. (John 13:34)

When He does talk about the world at the Last Supper, it is not in terms of having come to save the world:
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you." (John 15:18-19)

What you will not find at the Last Supper accounts is Jesus saying that He came to save the whole world. This is not to deny the truth of whosebob's quote from 1 John, it is just that in these quotes, Jesus and John were teaching different lessons.


P.S. tsorama, is your correspondent Scott Carson?

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dancelittleewok I am not sure I understand the issue here. Jesus did die for all of humanity, not just some it of it. If he only died for some, then do we need another Savior?

The issue is, what did Jesus say at the Last Supper, when the wine became His Precious Blood? You can read the Gospels in a large number of different translations, both Catholic and Protestant, and consistently see that Jesus said He was shedding His Blood "for many". The Roman Catechism says that Jesus deliberately said "for many" rather than "for all". The new Mass in Latin, like the traditional Mass before it, says that Jesus said "for many". The Divine Liturgies of the east and the saints of both east and west say that Jesus said "for many". But the ICEL translators changed our Lord's words to "for all", and a variety of false and contradictory justifications have been offered over the years for the change.

It now appears that the Holy Father will insist on an accurate translation of our Lord's words in the consecration, and that has caused a bit of excitement amoung some.

The one Savior is sufficient, but unfortunately, due to the perverse willfulness of man, not all are saved.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas's reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

It would be helpful to be able to read the whole article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988 St. Thomas described that it could indeed mean that Christ's blood was shed for all. While admittedly this is an incorrect translation of 'pro multis,' it is a theologically correct intepretation, depending upon if one has in mind sufficiency, not efficacy. Quote: "In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others." [In 4 Sent., dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, obj. C:7.] St. Thomas replies to an objection: Quote: "To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy; and, lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others.[ibid.] Thus, the effect or "fruit" of the shedding of Christ's blood is given to all those who the effect of the sacrament reaches, either by partaking of the Eucharist or through prayers offered on the behalf of others.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDunphy Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas's reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas has a similar paired objection and reply:
Objection 8. Further, as was already observed (48, 2; 49, 3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."
...
Reply to Objection 8. The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.

According to St. Thomas, our Lord said "for many" because he was talking about the efficacy of His sacrifice. People may object that He should have said "for all", but what He did say is "for many".

This is clearer in the Fathers St. Thomas quotes in his Catena Aurea.

For Matthew 26:28, he quotes Remigius:
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

For Mark 14:24, Pseudo-Jerome:
It goes on: “Which is shed for many.”
Pseudo-Jerome: For it does not cleanse all.

+++

Re: About “pro multis”

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Mike, take a sarcasm pill an re-read. BTW, it seems that you also didn't notice and failed to copy the last part in which this blogger friend says: Quote: Many cheered the translation precision of "for many" for the phrase "pro multis" which in turn is a translation from the Greek for "the multitude," which, without any stretch of the imagination means, "all." What is even more odd is that this translation is applauded without reference to its following restrictive clause--"that sins may be forgiven." This phrase restricts the meaning of the "for you and for all," it gives the purpose of this sacrifice--"That sins may be forgiven."...Now, perhaps if Jesus has said, "so that all might be saved," we'd have a good argument. But what He said is "so that all might be forgiven." The might be is not contingent upon the efficacy of the sacrifice but upon the resistance of the individual person

As you suggest, I misread the part I quoted; I read it as flakey rather than sarcastic. I did see the second part, but omitted it since I didn't think it added much. But since you mention it...

Pro multis means "for many", not "the many". The "the" that the unnamed blogger thinks is before "many" or "multitude" does not exist. And many does not mean all. Philip Goddard, in an excellent little article on pro multis and περι πολλων writes:

Quote:

in Liddell and Scott's standard Greek Lexicon, the article on πολλων extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning "all".

In the second paragraph, the blogger starts out interpreting "that sins may be forgiven" in way consistent with other translations of Matthew 26:28, namely that "it gives the purpose of this sacrifice". For comparison, see the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims. But then at the end he puts an emphasis on the word may, as if Jesus had said that sins may or may not be forgiven. That is an ambiguity in English due to the wording selected by the ICEL translators of the Mass. The two translations I just mentioned do not have that ambiguity. People can also check this word-by-word translation from the Greek to see that the blogger is placing considerable weight on a word that does not exist in the original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear06 Also, if you notice he links to Amy Welborn, Curt Jester and many more solidly Catholic sites. He's hardly a liberal who thinks all saved.

For what he writes that is good and true, I applaud him. But he still has some errors in his thinking about what pro multis means.

+++

I skipped over tsorama's "so that all might be forgiven", quoted by bear06 above, guessing that it was merely a typo, but I wonder if the blogger wrote it deliberately, as a paraphrase put into quotes.

tsorama himself showed up and chimed in:

Ha, well, you haven't arrived in blogdom if you haven't been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I'm not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don't see how that's controversial, and it's certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

For a nuanced look at "pro multis", see this.

This is Scott Carson's blog. I found tsorama's blog though his link to Scott Carson's "nuanced look", where in a nuanced way, Scott says:

I do agree with you that it is, of course, possible that not all will make it to heaven. That is also a logical possibility. But since we do not know for a fact that not all will, while we do know for a fact that God wills that all make it...

I wonder whether Scott is the unnamed blogger that tsorama says is not a universalist. He doesn't assert universalism, but he does not deny it, either.

I started commenting on this post a few weeks ago, and then got sidetracked by this Catholic Answers Forums thread occuring at the same time. I hope Scott will allow new comments on an old post, because some of his remarks can and should be answered, or at least questioned.

Help in Spiritual Reading

Quid Est Veritas? has some good guidelines from St. Alphonsus Liguori on how to read so that the reading will benefit your soul:

It is, in the first place, necessary to recommend yourself beforehand to God, that he may enlighten the mind while you read. It has been already said, that in spiritual reading the Lord condescends to speak to us; and, therefore, in taking up the book, we must pray to God in the words of Samuel: Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. Speak, O my Lord, for I wish to obey Thee in all that Thou wilt make known to me to be Thy will.

In the second place, you must read not in order to acquire learning, nor to indulge curiosity, but for the sole purpose of advancing in divine love. To read for the sake of knowledge is not spiritual reading, but is, at the time of spiritual reading, a study unprofitable to the soul. It is still worse to read through curiosity. What profit can be expected form such reading? All the time devoted to such reading is lost time. St. Gregory says that many read and read a great deal, but, because they have read only through curiosity, they finish reading as hungry as if they had not been reading. Hence the saint corrected a physician called Theodore for reading spiritual books quickly and without profit.

To derive advantage from pious books it is necessary to read them slowly and with attention. "Nourish your soul," says St. Augustine, "with divine lectures." Now to receive nutriment from food, it must not be devoured, but well masticated. Remember, then, in the third place, that to reap abundant fruit from pious reading, you must masticate and ponder well what you ready; applying to yourself what is there inculcated. And when what you have read has made a lively impression on you, St. Ephrem counsels you to read it a second time.

Besides, when you receive any special light in reading, or any instruction that penetrates the heart, it will be very useful to stop, and to raise the mind to God by making a good resolution, or a good act, or a fervent prayer. St. Bernard says, that it is useful then to interrupt the reading, and to offer a prayer, and to continue to pray as long as the lively impression lasts. Let us imitate the bees, that pass not from one flower to another until they have gathered all the honey that they found in the first. This we should do, although all the time prescribed for the reading should be spent in such acts; for thus the time is spent with greater spiritual profit. Sometimes it may happen that you draw more fruit from reading a single verse than from reading an entire page.

Moreover, at the end of the reading you must select some sentiment of devotion, excited by what you have read, and carry it with you as you would carry a flower from a garden of pleasure.

περι των πολλων ?

From the comments in Father Z's blog on the repaired translation of pro multis:

‘If the Greek says “peri twn pollwn”, it will generally be rendered in Latin as “pro multis”, because there is no good way to translate the “the” into Latin.’

But the Greek does not say that. If you go to http://www.studylight.org/isb/ or http://www.unboundbible.org/ and look up Matthew 26:28 in various editions of the New Testament, you will consistently see our Lord recorded as having said He would shed His blood περι πολλων, not περι των πολλων. The “the” is not there in the Greek.