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.

A Calvinist argues for Limited Atonement

From For Whom Did Christ Die?, by John Piper.
(For Calvinist support of unlimited atonement, see Ron Rhodes).

There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:

John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.

In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.

John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.

Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.

This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.

If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.

Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.

Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9, does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.

Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

---

A Catholic would say that we must really be cleansed of our sins and made holy. Having our sins "covered over" is not enough, because no unclean thing enters heaven.

Also, God forgiving us doesn't mean we don't have to make restitution. A thief might be forgiven yet still have to return what he has stolen.

---

Challenge to Universalism

The universalist asks, "Doesn't God's will always get done?" (the verse "His word does not return void to Him" being cited)? Really? Is the record of human history that God's will is always done? If it were, why would Jesus have prayed, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Why would he have needed to utter this prayer if a priori God's will is always done and in effect? If God's will is 100% in effect, why would Jesus have differentiated his will from the Father's when he said in Gethsemane, "Not my will but Thine"? Two wills, one deferring to the other. James says that the prayer of a righteous man "availeth much". But if God's will is always done, to what "avail" is the prayer of a righteous man?