Pro Multis

[Doom]

For some reason, our priest today decided to mention this, he said that the Greek says "hūper pollōn" which means "for many", but this is a Semitism that is logically equivalent to "for all", and does not mean anyone is excluded. He then mentioned that the usage of "for many" in the Mass is from the Vulgate which says "pro multis" which literally means "for many", he then criticized that translation and said it should have remained as "for all" even though it Is inaccurate.

This seems like such a weird hill to die on. If he is worried that someone might misunderstand "for many" as implying that some are excluded, he could do exactly as he did and point out in the homily on the feast of Corpus Christi that it does not imply a kind of Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I see no reason why he would criticize the 2011 English translation of the Latin text of the Roman Missal

[VeryTas]

For some reason, our priest today decided to mention this, he said that the Greek says "hūper pollōn" which means "for many", but this is a Semitism that is logically equivalent to "for all", and does not mean anyone is excluded. He then mentioned that the usage of "for many" in the Mass is from the Vulgate which says "pro multis" which literally means "for many", he then criticized that translation and said it should have remained as "for all" even though it Is inaccurate.

This seems like such a weird hill to die on. If he is worried that someone might misunderstand "for many" as implying that some are excluded, he could do exactly as he did and point out in the homily on the feast of Corpus Christi that it does not imply a kind of Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement.

I see no reason why he would criticize the 2011 English translation of the Latin text of the Roman Missal

What is a Semitism and what is not is most often speculation. It would be more valuable to ponder what our Lord might have meant in speaking of "many". For me it recalls the time he was asked if "many" will be saved and answered, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough (Luke 13:24)." In other words, for many of us (even all) it will be impossible because we are weak, but with God all things are possible for us, such as by the strength of his blood if we will receive it as such, as many of us do. He poured it out for the many who would avail themselves of his strength. It is also his desire that all should do so.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

How long has he been a priest?

[Doom]

How long has he been a priest?

He and the deacon both recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of his ordination.

His homilies are very in-depth expositions of the scriptures often quite enlightening, but it seems sometimes that he has ingested far too much skeptical historical-critical Bible scholarship as he will sometimes call things in the scriptures into question.


For example, on Ascension Sunday he talked about how such a big deal is made about the Ascension even though Luke is the only author who mentions it. (So what? Genesis is the only book in the Bible that tells the story of Abraham, does that mean it somehow isn't important? I don't get the point.) He then said "Luke must have been great at marketing", there were audible groans when he said that, as people seemed annoyed that he seemed to be mocking the scriptures.


And he often goes into depth about issues of translation. I do wonder whether the in-depth analysis he sometimes offers is appropriate for a Sunday Mass, or at least one for a general audience, rather than say an audience of seminarians or graduate students in theology.

[peregrinator]

One expects more from gen X, I mean, priests formed under JPII

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It's actually in Mark as well, but part of the "Longer Ending," so he might not count that.

[Doom]

It's actually in Mark as well, but part of the "Longer Ending," so he might not count that.

The longer ending appears to be post-date Luke and to be based on it. Whether the gospel of Mark was originally supposed to end at 16:8 or if there was originally there was more and the original ending was lost is of course a subject of considerable debate.

[peregrinator]

The fact that Mark 16:14-20 was the Gospel lesson for Ascension for time out of mind would seem to answer the debate.

[Doom]

The fact that Mark 16:14-20 was the Gospel lesson for Ascension for time out of mind would seem to answer the debate.

Whether or not it is read in Mass hardly proves that it was written by Mark

[peregrinator]

The fact that Mark 16:14-20 was the Gospel lesson for Ascension for time out of mind would seem to answer the debate.

Whether or not it is read in Mass hardly proves that it was written by Mark

It shows that the Church regarded it as inspired no matter what the authorship may be.

[Doom]

But that is not relevant to the question of whether the original ending was lost or if was originally intended to end at 16:8

[peregrinator]

But that is not relevant to the question of whether the original ending was lost or if was originally intended to end at 16:8

If the passage is inspired it can only be because it belongs to the Gospel of Mark.

[Doom]

No, that does not follow, when the Church declared the longer ending canonical, the decree admitted it was not by Mark

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I'm having trouble verifying that. Source?

[peregrinator]

No, that does not follow, when the Church declared the longer ending canonical, the decree admitted it was not by Mark

I agree that St. Mark might not be the inspired author, as I said, but the longer ending nevertheless belongs to the Gospel of Mark. Just as Moses might not have authored every passage of the five books attributed to him.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

The only thing I can find is:
The Council of Trent, reacting to Protestant criticism, defined the Canon of Trent which is the Roman Catholic biblical canon. "Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis," issued in 1546 at the fourth session of the Council, affirms that Jesus commanded that the gospel was to be preached by His apostles to every creature—a statement clearly based on Mark 16:15. The decree proceeded to affirm, after listing the books of the Bible according to the Roman Catholic canon, that "If anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." Since Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Gospel of Mark in the Vulgate, and the passage has been routinely read in the churches since ancient times (as demonstrated by its use by Ambrose, Augustine, Peter Chrysologus, Severus of Antioch, Leo, etc.), the Council's decree affirms the canonical status of the passage.