“Take this, all of you, and drink of it; for this is the cup of my blood: the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sin; do this in memory of me.”

We all know the words. At Mass on Sunday, the priest says these Words of Institution, displaying a narrative of the Last Supper. Most of us never think twice about these words, but unknown to many, there is a battle behind the scenes as to whether Christ really did die for all.

It has been continuously argued that “for all” and “for many” could never mean the same thing. Many argue the invalidity of the Novus Ordo because it proclaims a universal sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice made for all, rather than just an exclusive group. William Most, a Jesuit scholar has asserted that the Greek word used, "polloi," actually means “all who are many.” Because of this, he claims, there is truly no difference between ‘for all’ and ‘for many.’

Some continue and say that the Novus Ordo actually says, “for all men,” and can therefore not be considered equivalent to “all who are many.” They claim that the latter refers only to a large, yet exclusive group. This is simply a failure to grasp the grammatical structure of a basic clause. No matter what the context may be, “all” is always “many.” Otherwise put, there are many people on the earth and the many people on the earth are all the people on the earth. Therefore, “for all men” and “for all who are many” are synonymous.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent actually attempts to explain why “for many” must be used instead of “for all.” It reads;

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race... With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’ not used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

Ironically, it misses the point completely. The first sentence states clearly, “…the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men.” It continues, however, to state that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist speaks only of the fruits of this sacrifice, and as not all men will turn to Christ, the proper translation should be “for many.” However, the Words of Institution read, “…which will be shed for all, for the forgiveness of sin.” The above excerpt from the Catechism unintentionally validates the usage of “for all.”

It is even further claimed, based on this excerpt from the CCT that it is invalidated in much the same way a Baptism would be if the priest said “I baptize all” instead of “I baptize you.” Again, this is a completely different scenario. The priest is not saying that all will receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. He is, instead, saying that the Eucharist is available to all because Christ died for all. Baptism is a single act of dedication and rebirth in the name of God. It is also available for all, though all will not seek it. This does not invalidate the Novus Ordo Mass; it simply invalidates the arguments against it.

Simply put: Christ died for all, including you, whoever you are. He died so that your sins may be forgiven. The choice to take of the fruits of this sacrifice rests with you, the individual, not with a priest.

This article was written for all, not just for many, so feel free to distribute it as freely as you wish. May God bless you.