Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. I recall commentary in the early years following the death of Pope Paul VI suggesting that in his later years he retreated from his more confident, change-leader role of his early pontificate.
   Some suggested, if I recall correctly, his rejection of the majority Commission report and subsequent pronouncement in Humanae Vitae, reflected this shift towards a more reactive, position.
   'Scrupulosity' was a word used by more than one observer at the time.
   Is there something of a parallel here with Pope Benedict ?
   As for the shift in 'exegetical consensus', I'd like to hear others' assessments of that. Because if that's the case, are we to believe Jesus did not 'die for all'?

   Posted By: Doug

2. Isn't this a fundamental point in theology - did Christ die for all, or a chosen few (and hence bringing back the Calvinist predestination agony and turmoil in people's minds).
   Did Christ die for me and/or the bloke standing next to me, or neither of us?
   Talk about lost in translation - when the English translation actually changes the basis of antonement theology.
   'And with your Spirit' is another translation which just grates me.....
   

   Posted By: Dan of Brisbane

3. 'Many' is a contradiction to the Gospel invitation of 'all'. And whatever happened to 'catholic' universality?
   Can we really call ourselves 'Catholic' any more? Clearly, there are real problems in the Pope's instruction about what it means to be Christian today.

   Posted By: Jane Anderson

4. Why does the Church blindly adhere to all things Latin - in itself a dead language.
   Didn't Jesus speak in the vernacular, in the language of his day?
   I cannot accept that Latin has a special preeminence when passing on the good news of the gospel message to people today.

   Posted By: MH

5. Surely Chrisdt died for everyone and not just 'many'. Who is left out? This is taking a literal translation too far. It smacks of the notion of the elect.

   Posted By: Joan

6. Jesus died for humanity. When a person has been barred from the work force, church, family i.e does not belong and certainly feels that way, when she hears the words for many she will immediately identify with the feel left out because that is her experience.
   Is this what the translators were aiming for?

   Posted By: Anne S

7. I really can't differentiate whether it be 'all' or 'many' because even though it may be 'all' that all comprises many or lots or a humungeous or whatever you want to call it amount of people.

   Posted By: Kate

8. In Mark 14: 24 we read that Jesus said: “This is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many.” This was confirmed by Matthew who also was present at the meal that day.
   There is no doubt that Jesus would have wanted all to follow him, but the Good Shepherd knew that only the trusting, obedient sheep would do so. The stubborn goats would not. So, in this case, ‘many’ would be more accurate than ‘all’.
   

   Posted By: M. Lyons

9. 'Exegetical concensus' or soteriological imperative?
   While the Pope and others deal with semantics and matters of liturgical form and taste the fundamental reason for being of Christianity is being distorted.
   Sure, lets adhere to a limited notion of a mere Latin translation, and while we are at it let's also open the way for its full theological glory in the doctrine of predestination.

   Posted By: Mark Johnson

10. Have people not noticed that 'Christ died for many' is part of the new English translation of the Mass?
    The German Church is just being put in line with the Australian Church, and presumably, other English speaking congregations.
    It certainly seems at odds with the proposition that 'Christ died for all.' Could we perhaps have more information about who "the many" might be?
    Perhaps this is just another example of how returning to earlier Latin translations does not necessarily bring clarity to the English language.

    Posted By: Crenagh Kelly

11. Great explanations of the reasons for all the translations are available through the DVD sent out by the Australian Bishops Conference.
    I think that readers should do this little bit of research before reacting. It becomes clear that 'for many' is actually the bible term, and also that it is opposed to 'the few' and therefore does not in any way change our theology.
    As for 'and with your spirit', it doesn't seem to be grating with the young, and they are the future of the Church.
    Let's embrace celebrating the Scriptures in our Liturgy through this more biblical translation!

    Posted By: TC

12. I was taught that Christ died for all. I'm in agreement with the posts of Dan and Jane.

    Posted By: Margaret

13. What's getting lost in the indignant comments here, about 'many' and 'and with your spirit', is the text of the Scriptures.
    The institution narratives use the Greek word for many.
    Now we know (including from Paul) that Christ died for all, but we shouldn't bowdlerise the Scriptures. Likewise, 'and with your spirit' is good Pauline language.
    Similarly, the whingeing about 'oblation' 'co-heirs', 'under my roof' and similar expressions just shows that we have failed to implement Vatican II's mandate for greater knowledge of Scripture.

    Posted By: PM

14. This is about universality and accuracy.
    The Latin text of the Canon of the Mass is and was 'pro multis' - for many. Some vernacular translations of the missal of Paul VI rendered this 'for all' while others rendered it 'for man'.
    The 'for all' vernacular translations are simply are not accurate.
    The Church should be universal on this point.

    Posted By: Peter in Canberra

15. From the Catechism of the Council of Trent: 'The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, 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. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
    With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many...'

    Posted By: HH

16. And let us not forget how important this all is!
    The new Missal translation? Such a lot of fuss and expense to change a few words with no apparent input from those who matter (us!)
    Meantime, back in the real world... who's handling the abuse issues? Who's rejecting whom from dining with Christ?
    Who's sacking whom without informing them why they're being sacked? Some of us are getting heartily sick of the whole mess.
    I think I'll just clean up my own little pile and ignore the lot of them.

    Posted By: glen avard

17. Peter in Canberra sums up the irony in this: "The 'for all' vernacular translations are simply are not accurate. The Church should be universal on this point."
    The words of the new translation and not the reality signified, viz., the restoration of all things in Christ, redemption, which is only for many but not for all.
    The Lord be with (all of) you!

    Posted By: Tom Canberra

18. Peter in Canberra: Who cares about the Latin? Is Latin some sacred language? The fact is Jesus died for all and not for some.
    His sacrifice is universal and that is far more important than Latin. The Latin text might be 'pro multis' but the Roman Church has never been scripturally very literate.
    Even Cardinal Arinze is reported as having stated that 'for all' is more accurate scripturally.
    The RC Church needs to be more precise than universal on this point. If Jesus' sacrifice is not for all, then are you covered by it or not?

    Posted By: Francis

19. PM: You are quite wrong. The Greek text ,eg Mark 14:24) frequently uses the definite article with pollwn. It should be translated as 'the many'.
    Second, according to Gerhard Kittel, the Hebrew and Aramaic often has an inclusive sense, ie, 'the many who cannot be counted' or 'all' Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for all so they tend to speak of totality.
    In the NT polloi means many only at Mt 24:12 and 2 Corinthians 2:17. Elsewhere it is used always inclusively.
    The oldest tradition, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, does not refer to either many or all.
    Re 'and with you spirit'. According to Jack Mahoney SJ the ultimate source for the phrase must be the letters of Saint Paul, where it is to be found in four places: ‘22The Lord be with your spirit’ (2 Tim 4:22); ‘18May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters. Amen’ (Gal 6:18); and ‘23The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit’ (Phil 4:23 and Philemon 25). The question is, what does ‘with your spirit’ mean in Paul?
    It should be recognised for a start that it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit: it appears to be just a common formula for saying farewell. Also, it is mostly addressed to whole communities, not to their presbyters or ministers, far less to ordained priests.

    Posted By: Francis

20. Unfortunately there is no universal salvation, as there are those who would choose to reject Jesus. In fact, that's how he came to be crucified: by those who rejected him.
    Luckily there are many who do heed the word of God, and therefore many are saved by the blood of the new covenant.
    This translation is not about who is invited (all), but rather, who decides to take up the offer (many). It's an important distinction.

    Posted By: Trish

21. If you prefer to think of yourself among the many Jesus died for, or you prefer to count yourself among all the people he died for, your best option in either case is to receive the Eucharist as often as possible and pray constantly.
    Peace of mind is then assured.

    Posted By: Denis Goodwin

22. When I gazed upon the Crucifix, the ‘for all’ helped me to appreciate the omnipotence of God and the misery of man.
    Yet, I thank those who have made this change from the ‘for all’ into the ‘for many’.
    It gives me a deeper insight into the utter humility of God and the absolute freedom of man.
    By pouring out his blood, Jesus had done what was humanly possible in his part. He humbly respected our freedom to choose wisely the salvation that he generously bestowed upon all.
    Nevertheless, the change is completely in tune and spirit with Jesus' word in Matt 24:36-41 and the insights and understanding of John and Paul in Jn 3:16 and Phil 2:8.

    Posted By: Peter

23. Good liturgy reflects quality theology!
    Sadly this directive mirrors several others in the attempt by the current papacy and its predecessor to impose a Jansenist theology that has no precedent within the Catholic tradition.
    The notion that Christ's ministry is for an elect, rather than for all, is a grievous distortion of Catholic teaching, which denounced several aspects of Lutheranism and Calvinism that emphasised a pessimistic view of human nature and freedom and preached rigoristic views on the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist as well as pursuing a puritanical agenda on moral issues.
    Sadly the connection between this perverse theology and the beliefs and practices of Catholic fundamentalists is a strong one, constituting a fearsome obstacle for the renewal of Church, accounting for the poverty of formation of many people, an obsession with the retention of pious formalised practices, and of responding only to hierarchical and authoritarian pronouncements, rather than reading fidelity as the interplay of faith and life.
    The People of God need to express a keen vigilance about this distortion with all the intellectual rigour and spiritual strength that can be summoned at this time of trial. Such positions arise out of paranoia and extreme anxiety and fear of the End Times, in the manner of the conservative political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who argued that without authority, life in the state of nature would be solitary, nasty, brutish and short.

    Posted By: Michael Furtado

24. 'For many' is a poor translation of the Latin! 'Pro multis'; is better translated as 'for multitiudes'!

    Posted By: Tony

25. Multitudes, schmultitudes, semantics or semiotics, I'm afraid that nothing can alter the scriptural account of the importance and value of the one lost sheep, against the saved many! Latinists, like biblical literalists, will have an impossible time explaining away this unequivocal quote from the Word.
    Christ came, simply and extraordinarily, ineffably and categorically, fantastically and incredibly, for us all! Of that there can never be any doubt! And I shall continue to pray that. Not even a Pope can change that! To do so would constitute a heresy that consigns Christianity to the status of a mere cult.
    As for the casuists, who regard this as little more than a case of liturgical tidying-up and reining-in the unsophisticated and unaesthetic excesses of a vulgar Catholic hoi-polloi, I had the misfortune to spend three years of student life in close proximity to a community of Scottish 'Wee Frees'.
    Their miserable sobriety, extreme sabbatarianism, obsession with the law, public condemnation of transgressors, unbudging patriarchy and black-robed puritanical respectability reminded me of the Mujaheddin and jihaddists, and their ever-ready fatwahs declared on those in breach of the Koranic law, of my native Bengal.
    Against that, the Catholics in the region painted and tarted themselves up for Mass, demonstrating a joie de vivre beyond that of tumbling out of Church and into the pub - a true celebration of faith and life, expressed in hearty laughter and lusty liturgical singing, unlike the Calvinists' dour dirge (with neither choral embellishment nor organ accompaniment of psalms).

    Posted By: Michael Furtado

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Five Wagga sisters celebrate jubilee

   Amid declining numbers of nuns entering the church, five Catholic Presentation Sisters each celebrated a jubilee at Wagga’s Sacred Heart church over the weekend, reports The Daily Advertiser.

2. Wikipedia founder praises Pacem in Terris

   Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has praised Pope John XXIII’s historic encyclical “Pacem in Terris” as “a great thing,” reports the Catholic News Agency.
   

3. Cath Social Services welcomes Children's Commissioner

   Catholic Social Services Australia has welcomed the Federal Government’s decision to establish a National Children’s Commissioner, it said in a media statement.

4. Protest in Dublin at Vatican censure of priests

   More than 200 people have participated in a silent vigil outside the Holy See’s Nunciature in Dublin to protest the silencing or censuring of several Irish priests by the Vatican and to ask for the revocation of these disciplinary measures and their replacement by dialogue, reports Vatican Insider.

5. US congregations withdraw money from large banks

   American religious congregations have withdrawn about $40 million nationwide from the country's largest banks, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, as part of a cmpaign to make banks accountable for their impact on families, reports the Catholic News Service.