[quote=Kirane]If you are going to call names…
What name did I call you?
The fact is that the word efficaciously was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to this question. This is something which you have added, and incredibly you accuse anyone of ignorance if they go along with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
You neglect the fact that the Roman Catechism is a post-councilar summary of doctrine, the nature of which is to teach the “rudiments of the faith.” (cf. Introduction, Roman Catechism). I did not add to the Catechism, but instead told you the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church both before Trent and after Vatican II, which shows that your “change in doctrine” thesis absurd.
If you read the link I provided, you’d know what the Roman Catechism says on the issue. From Fr. McCarthy’s article, the Roman Catechism states,
"…we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.
Furthermore, from the same article, it shows that before the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas taught from his Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences of Peter the Lombard:
“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 is a way of avoiding the question, by simply calling someone who refers to a document of the Council of Trent as ignorant.
In your post (#25) you didn’t ask a question, but made an accusation, erroneous as it was. Thus, I’m not avoiding a question but correcting your faulty accusation.
Nor, did I call you ignorant. I stated that if you choose ignorance I cannot help you. If you choose not to read the articles I provided, then you choose to remain in ignorance about what the Church even before Trent taught about the atonement’s sufficiency for all and efficacy for many. This doctrine has not changed after Vatican II as you erroneously state.
You also falsely accused me of questioning the validity of the Mass, which I did not.
You said it was an “essential part” of the Mass. I’ve showed that “pro multis” is not an essential part of the Mass, as many ancient formulas omitted it altogether. Whether you knew it or not, “essential part of the Mass” means that without this essential part, the Mass is invalid. That’s what “essential” means in Catholic theology. I recommend instead of thrusting out words you don’t completely understand in relation to the Catholic liturgy in an attempt to make accusations against Catholic teaching, you do some more reading about the religion.
The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point since it now says that it is OK to use the words for all, whereas before it said it was with reason that the words for all were not used.
The Catholic Church has affirmed that the English translation is to be understood to mean that which the Latin text means, in accord with the quote I’ve given above from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (1974). Thus, your thesis is absurd.
The Church herself in the Latin editio typica has “pro mutlis.” My Roman Missal, published in the USA still has “pro mutlis.” If this was some great USA conspiracy to change doctrine then they aren’t doing a very good job by printing the Latin as “pro multis” in my Roman Missal.
The Church herself explicitly says the approved translation is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text, which says “pro multis.” So, from a liturgical view, the english translation is imprecise, but affirmed to mean what the Latin states (pro multis). From a doctrinal view, Christ’s atonement remains sufficient for all and efficacisous for many which the doctrine has always been.