Jesus Died for ?
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    I realize that this subject may start a firestorm and that is truly NOT my intention. However, I have long had this on my mind and would appreciate some kind, caring and loving discussion on this topic.

    Today, I heard a Catholic bishop say that Jesus died for ALL people. This seems to me to be the teaching of Universalism and thus a heresy. In every pre-Vatican II bible (Catholic and Protestant), and all rites of the Mass that I can find, it says that Jesus died and shed His blood for "MANY" and not for "ALL." True, the Bible also says that whoever calls upon the name of Jesus will be saved. After pre-Vatican II, most bibles and liturgies have been changed to the word "ALL." Of course I am not a Greek, Latin or ancient language scholar. However, this seems to me to be an extremely important point and concerns me greatly.

    I am not sure that ALL human beings are the Children of God. There are many references in many texts that support this and certainly this would help to explain why there is a critical difference between good people and bad people. Jesus points this out when in the Temple, He declares that the some of teachers and priests of the Temple at that time, are children of Satan and that God is NOT their father. Perhaps one is not a child of God until the Holy Spirit comes to an indwelling within them, giving them a new birth and thus they are "born again."

    I have known several people on both the Tridentine Mass and the 1928 Prayer Book / Anglican Missal side of which these words "MANY" and "ALL" are a central and critical issue as well.

    In love and charity, what are your thoughts on this subject?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I've done a lot of study into Calvinist theology. One of the points of the Calvinist "TULIP" is the L - Limited atonement. This is the idea that Christ only died for the "elect", that is, those whom God has chosen for salvation. Arminians and Lutherans believe that Christ died for all men, but that by rejecting this grace many are damned. My understanding of Catholic doctrine, as explained to me by many orthodox (by Roman standards) priests is that Catholicism teaches, in a way, the Arminian model. Christ shed His blood for all men, but since that forgiveness is given through the sacraments, some remain damned due to obstinacy. Thus, the "many" of the Canon refers not to the number elected, but to the number who will partake of the Blood in the Sacrament - obviously not all men receive Holy Communion!

    I'm certain it'd be fairly simple to find a canon or two of Trent which deals with this topic.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    If I understand it aright, Universalism is the teaching that all men will in fact be saved.

    And yet the bishop you heard is not alone as a Catholic in using the expression "Jesus died for all people." St. Paul, too, writes that Christ died for all: "For the charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, that if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." (2 Cor 5, Douay-Rheims edition)

    The expression "Christ died for all" is not intended to imply that all men will in fact be saved, but that God wills to save all men, and Jesus died for the sake of all.

    As part of the Church's rejection of Jansenism, Pope Innocent X made clear in 1653, in the Constitution Cum occasione that it is not heretical to say that Christ died for all men and shed His blood for all. This is documented in the Enchiridion Symbolorum (a standard reference work of doctrinal texts from the Popes and Councils), no. 1096. The heretic Cornelius Jansen taught: "It is semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died for each and every man and shed his blood for all." Pope Innocent X condemned that proposition as "false, rash, scandalous"; he went to say that if one holds that "Christ died for the salvation of the predestined" -- "...only", that is -- it is "impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety [i.e. to divine mercy], and heretical."

    I haven't touched on all the points you mentioned, but I hope this helps.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    St. Louis de Montfort also addresses this point in his book, True Devotion to Mary. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/truedevo.htm) beginning at paragraph 22, it goes into it deeply. He addresses the differences between the 'children of the devil', reprobates, schismatics and more.

    Chonak and Gavin are saying it the way I understand it and have seen it in different writings, particularly de Montfort's treatise.
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    Thank you folks for this. What you have said have given me much to think on / over and it is a comfort to me. It's just that this point has been a stumbling block to me for a long time. It helps to clarify so much!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    I am asking questions - not pretending to have the answers --- let alone to sit in judgment upon any man. Was it Tertullian who first held that all men would eventually be saved? That in the end none would be irrevocably lost? This is certainly difficult for us mortals to comprehend. Scripture, as quoted above, and elsewhere, most assuredly states that Christ died for all. It does not necessarily follow that all WILL be saved. Many may not be for a variety of reasons which any of us could rehearse. But, I should not want to entertain the slightest presumptuous notion that I know who they are, that any specific person is outside the limitless redemptive love and mercy of God, or of his power and grace. We can easily think of some of history's monsters, or perhaps types of monsters in our own society today whom we cannot imagine being among the elect. However! Let me not be among any who would fain to know that this or that person, or these persons, are in fact doomed. Judgment is of God alone. We would all be much wiser if we spent our time praying for those who need our prayers than wondering whether or not Jesus died for them. Should we really neglect to pray for some because we conclude that they are lost??? Is this not rather like casting the first stone? Did not our Lord say that if we wanted our sins to be forgiven we must forgive others their sins? Likewise, we should not assume that our own sins are more forgivable than those of some others. These are questions, not answers.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Good questions, M. However, this is not about judging any particular persons or souls, it is merely stating that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling, because any and all of us have the free will to reject God and be forever lost. And on the other hand, it also points out the devilishly foolish trap of thinking "once I am saved, I am always saved. It just is not so!"
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    It sure as heck wasn't Tertullian. Tertullian opined that one of the pleasures of the Blessed after the Last Judgment would probably be to sit back and watch the damned roast and suffer and be destroyed, as a sort of holy gladiatorial spectacle. (To be fair, Tert was trying to encourage Christians addicted (like him) to gladiatorial sport to stop spectating, so this was his idea of an encouraging word. But... creepy.)

    Tertullian had issues, the poor layman lawyer guy, and he knew it. It's just super sad that his issues eventually led him right out of the Church. I still think his beloved wife whom he sang psalms back and forth with must have died or been killed, and that's why he went Donatist.
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 310
    Hebrews 10:8-10:
    First he says, "Sacrifices and offerings, holocausts and sin offerings, you neither desired nor delighted in." These are offered according to the law.
    Then he says, "Behold, I come to do your will." He takes away the first to establish the second.
    By this "will," we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once FOR ALL.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    I am asking questions - not pretending to have the answers --- let alone to sit in judgment upon any man. Was it Tertullian who first held that all men would eventually be saved? That in the end none would be irrevocably lost?


    I think that was Origen, actually. Here's a list of the anathemas against the guy (he was crazy!). I think the "monstrous restoration" talked about in the first anathema is his idea that every soul will go to heaven eventually--even Satan. A couple other saints were kinda influenced by his thinking, but he's the one who originally thought it up and also the one who took it to heretical extremes.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Ioannes

    That is the same thinking as Jesus dying for all. That doesn't mean we all will apply the fruits of salvation to our souls in the end.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Thanks, Jam. I knew it was Origen - but couldn't think of his name at the time.
    I fail to see the object of questioning whether our Lord died for all. The scriptures are very plain about this: he did!
    Is not this concern akin to the apostles self-centred querries as to who would sit at Jesus' right hand?
    That, he said, he did not know - it was for the Father to decide. Certainly none of us can sanely assume that
    we, as opposed to someone else, are going to be among the elect; or, finding ourselves among the elect, failing
    to commend the lost to God's mercy. Such a judgmental presumption would be, it
    seems to me, a ticket to somewhere other than heaven. (Remember Moses' pleading with God for him to spare
    the sinners for the sake of ten righteous: if Moses had said 'in your wisdom you are right, O God, so
    let them perish', I think that God would not have been talking to him in the first place. There is something very uncomfortably
    pharisaical in this pre-occupation over whether Jesus died for all, and the taking note of the fact that some will (presumably) be lost.
    If we desire to be saved, then we had best hope and pray for those who are (seemingly to us) more astray than we.
    Pride goeth before the fall - and spiritual pride is the most insidious of all.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    That is why the sacraments are SO important. Without them we are certainly lost. Especially regular Confession and the Eucharist!
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    While not everyone is going to be saved indiscriminately--it's not heretical to pray and hope that Hell will remain empty save for Satan and his demons. Salvation is certainly possible for all men, although the Bible does seem to make it clear that there is a Hell and that it will be occupied.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    I'm not sure if Ken's original question pertained to the text in the Missal at the Consecration or not. I think that's where the firestorm of criticism has arisen. And we may be discussing two slightly different issues - who Christ died for and who he stated at the Last Supper that his Blood would be shed for.

    To study the whole of the Bible, and figure that God's intention, and therefore Christ's, was to save all of humankind is one thing. To take that overall view of salvation history, even forward to the end of time, is quite another. To take that concept and insert it into the central focal point of the Mass, even to the point of putting words into Christ's mouth, is even worse, I think.

    So, should we use the word "all" at Mass, and then need to teach everyone the ifs, ands, and buts of salvation? Or should we use the word "many", as in the Latin for all these generations, and need to teach that all are called to be a part of the many? I think the latter is the better way to proceed.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    We should use the same words Christ used (translated, of course, unless you're Marionite) -- "for you and for many." To do otherwise is to lie, to pretend that Christ said something that he did not.
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    Do I have this issue correct by saying simply, that God so loved all mankind that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believe on Him MIGHT be saved, but infortunately due to our free will and choice, only "many" shall be saved? Thus Christ fore-knowing and saying at the last supper that His blood was shed for many.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    The Mass always stated "Many", and that is theologically correct. Whoever said "All" and had it put in the Mass is probably going to have a lot of explaining to do when He/She goes before The Almighty. Unfortunately, they may be one of the ones not in the many!
Add a Comment