The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att...
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
Well, people were whining about it while it was still in the works, I can't imagine why they'd stop now.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, anticipate a missal that treats us like we can think, and which gives something to savour. You know...dark chocolate instead of Nestle's Quick.
And I really wish inclusive language would go the way of sin in the confessional.
"The phrase (pro vobis et pro multis) is translated for you and for all in the current missal."
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. "Multi" means "many," not "all." If "all" had been meant, the correct Latin would have been "omni."
"...people may be led to ask, "are there some for whom Jesus did not die?'"
Yes -- those who refuse the offer. To think otherwise is to deny the right of choice and to embrace the concept of pre-destination.
Lady Janus
ReplyDeleteJesus did die for ALL and , because we have a free will, we can refuse Him but one's refusal does not change the truth...i can tell u i donated to a charity and u can say i don't believe you but the unbelief does not change the truth that i did do it.
Lady Janus, isn’t "many" a relative term which can include "all".
ReplyDeleteThere are no human beings for who's sake Jesus' saving act was not for. Through His death on the cross he created a path to God for every single individual human being. There are still plenty of paths to "choose" from.
Predestination does not exclude the gift of free will either because as Thomas Aquinas said "predestination places nothing in the predestined, only in the person who predestines.
Mary, according to the Latin, you are incorrect.
ReplyDeleteLady Janus perhaps you are correct about the nomenclature but i believe with every fiber of my being that He did die for EVERYONE and St. Paul (in his letter to the Hebrews Chapter 11) "that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". We also have Jesus' instruction to go out the preach the Good News to all the earth....His instruction excluded NOBODY and i believe it is a promise to meet all of us just where we are and He will tell us who He wants to be for us and who we are to be for Him.
ReplyDelete"...isn’t 'many' a relative term which can include 'all'."
ReplyDeleteNo. The words are very specific, if you'll simply refer to what I originally said. If "all" had been meant, the word would have been, "omni." "Many" very specifically excludes "all."
"There are no human beings for who's sake Jesus' saving act was not for."
Actually, there are: anyone who was not yet born at the time of his death. Unless, again, you want to embrace the concept of pre-destination. And yes, predestination does exclude free will. What was Aquinas smoking when he said that?
Mary, you are free to believe as you wish, but you are not free to put that belief on someone who does not want it. What is a "gift" to you could very well be anathema to someone else. You've heard of the idea of the white elephant?
Lady Janus,if 4 fingers and one thumb completes a normal functioning hand, what number of fingers in your world would constitute many?
ReplyDeleteYou said "Actually, there are: anyone who was not yet born at the time of his death. Unless, again, you want to embrace the concept of pre-destination. And yes, predestination does exclude free will. What was Aquinas smoking when he said that?" I see a conclusion in this argument but no indication whatsover what it was formed from.
Sounds like you might be smokin a little somthin' there Janus!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand either your question or your comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't smoke.