Talk:Pro multis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

I have marked this with the NPOV template. Look, I'm not terribly well informed about this subject, so I can't say for sure, and I certainly can't rewrite the article myself, but many statements in this article strike me as tendentious, straw men, or otherwise POV. For example:

• Subsequent to Vatican II, in the New Mass of Paul IV, the words pro multis have been rendered pro omnibus with the deliberate intention of signifying the Universalist heresy, and based on the claims of a German Protestant scholar, Joachim Jeremias.

  (It seems highly unlikely that Vatican II changed the mass with the "deliberate intention" of signifying any heresy.)

• The claims of Joachim Jeremias, that Christ used for many to signify for all because there was no word in the Aramaic language for all were debunked by the Catholic Traditionalist scholar and apologist Patrick Henry Omlor.

  ("Claims" and "debunked" are rather biased words. Not to mention that it would be absurd to argue that any language had "no word for all", so this is probably a straw man--more likely Jeremias argued that the phrase "for many" could idiomatically mean "for all" in Aramaic.)

Perhaps someone with a more intimate knowledge of this subject could comment, or better yet improve this article. --Iustinus 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an attempt at a more neutral article. I will leave it to persons more familiar with the issue and Wickpedia to see if it should replace the main article.

Pro multis is a Latin phrase which means "for many". It is part of the Rite of Consecration of the wine into the Blood of Christ the Western Christian tradition, as part of the Mass.

The Phrase.

The phrase comes from The gospel of Mark where he [Jesus] said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many Mark 14:24 RSV.

The Gospel text is translated “for many” in all almost all translations. Those that don’t are usually paraphrases. “Pro Multis” is the Latin.

In the liturgical settings, until the 20th Century, it was always translated “for many.”

In the 20th Century some advocated that “for all” is a better translation especially in a liturgical context.

After the second Vatican Council the new Mass in Latin still retained “Pro Multis,” but many vernacular translations, including English, were written as “for all”

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, recently directed that all translations will be "for many."

Theological Significance.

In Roman Catholic teaching Jesus died for the sins of ALL but only some (MANY) will avail themselves of the free gift of salvation. This is the middle position between two extremes.

The Universalistic heresy that all will be saved, without regard to personal action or belief.

The Double Predestination heresy that Jesus did not die for all, only for those previously selected (predestined) by God for salvation.

Proponents of “for all” stated that using "for many" promoted a Double Predestination attitude. Which emphasizes the belief that not only did Jesus die for some specific individuals (those "predestined' for salvation by God) but that it is also therefore true that Jesus did *not* die for certain predestined individuals.

Behavioral significance not as striking

[While perhaps this abbreviated version does not do full justice to those who hold this belief--as, for example, the previous author, all sides on the issue(s) have their own scriptures to support their claims.

Note that the predestination belief, as is often the case with Christian theological debates, is not exclusive to any denomination or expression of Christianity. Many in the Protestant "reformed" movement, for example, hold a similar view, arguing that it is not for humans to decide what God should or should not do, rather that those who have come to God (thus tautologically predestined) should not hold their saved status as a matter of their own accomplishment--because they were predestined, they would have become saved no matter what their initial intents or goals. Those in this position might also claim that since nothing is hidden from God, and God is not limited by time/space, God knew exactly the fate of each individual yet to be born even before the sacrifice on the cross (and even before the creation of the world). They would then point out that it would be pointless for God to die for those who would never accept this sacrifice, therefore Jesus did not really die for all, but for all who would be saved.

Also as is often the case, this theological distinction makes little difference to the way in which one would live out their salvation. If pointing to any person who has not yet been saved, one group might say "either this person's not predestined to be saved, or God's full time has not yet come. We might be the instruments which God intends to use to save this person." Another group might say "there is a person who has not yet been saved. We need to witness to them about spiritual salvation."

Thus the position has little, if any effect on the actions of any particular believer. Both theological positions would support a missionary movement and would emphasize the responsibility of those who have already accepted their redemption through the sacrifice of Christ to testify to this sacrifice to all with whom the believer comes into contact.

So believers on either side of the argument would act in similar manners, but with slightly different justifications Vagabundus]

Supporters of “for many” in addition to supporting a literal translation often stated that “for all” promoted a Universalistic attitude.

Both sides say that teaching outside mass is important to prevent misunderstanding.

Roman Catholic commentators who support “for many” usually say something like “for all” is in the limits of orthodoxy but unfortunate and misleading.

The Controversy.

Since the Consecration is the central act of the Mass any questions about the accuracy of the translation take on a much larger scope than an academic review of the Greek and Latin would indicate. It is one of leading hot button items in discussions over the adequacy of the vernacular translations. It one of the main reasons that Traditionalist Groups have expressed for breaking with the Roman Catholic Church.

The POV of the original article.

The Author described the Roman Catholic Church as the Vatican II sect. The members of a church would not usually describe the themselves as a sect. The article is a typical POV of the traditionalist groups which broke with Church on this issue.

---------

The main article has been completely rewitten, the comments above apply to a very different version.

well done!

This complete rewrite mostly fixes the POV issues which was infused throughout the article. It would still benefit from someone versed in theology to insert some helpful references and note some informative links, both theological (other articles about these named items and events) and historical (when did this issue first arise and by whom? There is mention of "Traditionalist Groups", are there articles about these groups, their leadership, the groups' history and impact?

Vagabundus 12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)