Heretical Translation In The Mass?

[Dave]

I'm sure we've all heard the old "for many" vs. "for all" debate regarding the consecration in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I'm sure we all know that the Church has decided "for many" is the correct translation and will be changing that soon. I'm sure we also know that whether "for all" or "for many" is used, the Mass is still valid regardless and thus pleasing to God.

Having said that, I've heard some folks, while not denying any of the above facts, nevertheless insist that "for all" is essentially heretical. They cite the Council of Trent, which says that the reason the phrase "for many" is used at the consecration is to show that the shedding of Jesus' blood, while of course done for all people, won't be of any effect for some because they've chosen not to repent and thus accept His gift of salvation. Thus, according to them, "for all" implies universal salvation.

Is the above opinion even permissible for a Catholic to hold? I mean, IMO, it's one thing to say an approved Mass translation isn't very good and needs improvement but quite another to say that a given aspect of it is heretical.

[Resurrexi]

"For all," though a ridiculously inaccurate translation and an abominable change to the words of Christ Himself, is not heretical.

"Nullus est, fuit vel erit homo, pro quo Christus passus non fuerit"--"There is not, never has been, and never will be a single man for whom Christ did not suffer."

[Dave]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='18 April 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1271627409' post='2095775']
"For all," though a ridiculously inaccurate translation and an abominable change to the words of Christ Himself, is not heretical.

"Nullus est, fuit vel erit homo, pro quo Christus passus non fuerit"--"There is not, never has been, and never will be a single man for whom Christ did not suffer."
[/quote]


You're correct, and the individuals with whom I've spoken don't deny that Christ suffered for everyone. It's just the very idea of calling an approved translation of the Mass heretical (no matter how flawed the translation may be) that worries me. I mean, the Church, by the mere fact of its indefectibility, can't promulgate sacramental rites which are intrinsically invalid or evil ... it just seems that to call part of a given approved Mass translation heretical is itself heretical.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Dave' date='18 April 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1271628290' post='2095782']
You're correct, and the individuals with whom I've spoken don't deny that Christ suffered for everyone. It's just the very idea of calling an approved translation of the Mass heretical (no matter how flawed the translation may be) that worries me. I mean, the Church, by the mere fact of its indefectibility, can't promulgate sacramental rites which are intrinsically invalid or evil ... it just seems that to call part of a given approved Mass translation heretical is itself heretical.
[/quote]

The Church did not promulgate the English translation. The translation was merely approved. There is a huge difference between approbation and promulgation. Just thought I would point that out.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I agree with Rexi. It's not heretical in itself. It is correct to say that His blood was shed for all. However, given that [i]pro multis[/i] is meant to place a certain emphasis on the need to convert to be one of those who are saved by His blood, the current rendering of the English translation is faulty in a catechetical sense.

[Bennn]

Agreed with Raphael's post. The 'for all' is in itself correct because Christ did fulfill the work of Redemption for every soul, but it might give people the idea that everyone will go to Heaven regardless of what you do. The devil can sometimes use things that are not bad in itself to accumulate other heresies in the minds of those who are not so firm in the faith.

So I'm glad it will be changed to 'pro multis' again.