About “pro multis”


#1

The following was written by Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf.
wdtprs.com/blog/2006/10/about-pro-multis/
10-28-06

*"Three different well-placed sources I trust in Congregations here in Rome confirmed for me that the Holy Father made the determination that the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood will be properly translated, “for many”, in the upcoming English text now in preparation. I had reason to be optimistic about this quite some time ago, but these confirmations go far beyond previous news.

Ever since Pope Paul VI, the Pontiff reserves to himself the approval of all sacramental forms in vernacular versions. Only Pope Benedict can make this decision.

WDTPRS has been hammering this for years, working as a lobby precisely for this, which is the single most important translation issue that had to be resolved. The WDTPRS articles have been used by members of the Vox Clara Committee, bandied about in Congregations, and even read by the Holy Father before his election. In the articles I urged readers to write respectful and brief letters about this issue to members of the Committee and prefects of Congregations. They did and I saw copies of their letters and the nice responses they received in return. The articles kept supplying ammunition during the war over the translation. …(more}

It is evident that our new Pope is trying his best to reverse this …He needs our prayers because surely the liberals will resist these efforts.*


#2

What is WDTPRS?


#3

It is evident that our new Pope is trying his best to reverse the disasterous course that the Church took under the leadership of Paul VI and John Paul II. Let us pray that he is successful, and that these 40 yeas of apostacy will come to an end.

Take a deep breath, man. That vein in your forehead is popping out.


#4

#5

For years, the official sacramental formula in English said “for all men”.

I have seen numerous Sacramentaries where the “men” was crossed out in pencil before it was officially removed, and heard bishops omit it as well.

“Pro multis” in Latin does not mean “for all”.

It’s a mistranslation that has PROFOUND theological and doctrinal implications. Profound.

The worst student in high school Latin I would know “pro multis” means “for many”, not “for all”.

It was mistranslated deliberately, and Rome has allowed the mistranslation for over 30 years.


#6

I see this as a real benchmark. Pope Benedict acts decisively once he has thought something through. He is interested in a new kind of dialogue, even ecumenical dialogue, based on accurate and forthright expressions of what we believe as a Church. The choice to say “for many” rather than “for all” indicates a serious shift of approach on many levels. It seems to me that the days of overly careful political correctness are done, at least in some spheres of the Church’s activity.

Gloria in excelsis Deo! :thumbsup:

I’ll have to see if my people in Roma know anything about this…:cool:


#7

“Apostacy” ??

Seems to be a pretty strong word when used in the strict definition of “a complete repudiation of the faith of the Church by one who has been baptized.” And, “a denial of the truth of God and the Church.” both from The Catholic Encyclopedia by Broderick, Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1987.

Are you sure you meant that particular word in concert with the Infallibility of the Pope in Faith and Morals issues??

Richard

ps…this is not intended to hijack the thread, I agree with the correctness of appropriate translation. RH


#8

May I suggest that you read the “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (Vatican II post-conciliar document). It is quite short and very illuminating.


#9

I have read Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism.


#10

WDTPRS = what does the prayer really say…a comparison of the Latin and the ICEL translation…worth reading it is quite enlightening…

wdtprs.com/blog/

james


#11

Didn’t say it did. My intent was to be somewhat proactive before this thread devolved into “Only Christians Go To Heaven”.

Oh, and kudos on the whole latin thing. You seem to be proud of that.

I’m a little grouchy right now. I’ll stop posting now.


#12

Ahh, thanks for the pointer.


#13

If popes have time to sit in front of Buddhas put on tabernacles

This is an example of a Traditio.com lie. This didn’t happen and for you to say otherwise is slanderous. The pope was not involved with this incident. This is why those who used to tell this story with every other breath stopped doing so. If you are going to slander the pope, you better be able to back it up. The only difference between your story and the one that used to be told was that it used be told with the Pope saying Mass with a Buddha on the tabernacle. At least you’ve toned it down.:mad:


#14

#15

Did I say John Paul II ordered a Buddha to be placed on a Tabernacle?

Nope.

Was a Buddha on a Tabernacle at Assisi?

Yes.

Assisi was a scandal of unprecedented proportions.

Furthermore, last year, were Hindus allowed to worship at Fatima?

Yes.

Was the SSPX allowed to celebrate Mass at Fatima?

No.


#16

You said this:

If popes have time to sit in front of Buddhas put on tabernacles,

This did not happen. It’s a slanderous comment.


#17

First of all, I never mentioned John Paul II by name in that quote you’re calling “slander”.

But since you want to discuss John Paul, sometimes called “The Great”, let’s discuss John Paul.

Did he officiate at a Mass where a woman with exposed breasts served as Lector?

Yes.

Did he engage in public prayer with heretics and pagans?

Yes.

Did he kiss the blasphemous Koran?

Yes.

And, lest we lose track of this thread…he allowed the mistranslation “for all” to go on in America for 27 years.


#18

EDIT

I really think our new Pope is doing his best to correct the mess the Church is in, but is proceeding slowly. It reminds me of the vision of St. John Bosco, who saw the Pope “straining every muscle” to direct the Church. I think that is the situation our current Pope finds himself in.

EDIT

The pro multis mistranslation was not a small thing. In addition to not being the words our Lord used, if you read what the Catechism of Trent said those words refer to (those who will actually be saved), mistranslating them as “for all” teaches universal salvation, since, according to the meaning of those words as interpreted by the Catechism of Trent, it means that all, not just many, will be saved. John Paul II may have believed in the error of universal salvation but it is false (and yes, John Paul II not only questioned whether anyone was in hell, but also taught universal salvation by name).

And if you believe what the Council of Florence taught when it defined the words of consecration - that if anyone changed any of the words, and if the new word did not mean what the original word meant, then consecration would not take place - the implications are even more serious. Because, who will claim that many means all? And if all and many don’t mean the same thing, then, according to the Council of Florence (not USMC) the New Mass is invalid, and the prophecy from the book of Daniel has come to pass:

Daniel: "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground (Daniel 8:11-12) … they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation (Daniel 11:31).


#19

Pax tecum!

Alex, come on. The only pope that reigned during the time of the incident was JPII…we know full well who you meant by “popes”. You were caught in a lie, and now you’re trying to get out of it.

There sure are a lot of people these days that think they’re more Catholic than the pope. People seem to think that they are more qualified in the interpretation of Tradition and Canon Law than the Magesterium. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen statements/documents by previous popes or Canon Law quoted to justify disobedience to the pope or to say that the pope was “wrong” in saying that the SSPX is in schism or that the NO is a terrible Mass. I’m really getting sick of people like you badmouthing our popes in every thread you post in.

In Christ,
Rand


#20

So you are insinuating that perhaps one day a pope will say that Paul VI and John Paul II were both heretics? How dare you! :mad:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.