Not pro - Pro Multis
Dale Price on Bishop Trautman's Pro Multis criticism.
Bishop Trautman, bulwark against things Traditional, has issued another call to arms. Anyone else reminded how alpha-male baboons deal with challengers? So much to fisk, so little time.
So I'll just jump on this little nugget:
“That change easily could be misinterpreted as denying the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that Christ died for all people,” the press release quoted Trautman as saying.
Translation: the Ordinary of Erie thinks you are a USCCB-Certified, Grade-A idiot. And by "you," I am saying those in Holy Orders as well as lay people. He's assuming (1) pastors are faced with a theological conundrum equivalent to reciting from memory the canons of the Council of Nicaea, (2) said pastors are absolutely incapable of giving a three-sentence (maximum) explanation of the change, and that us dunsels in the pews are (3) lowing cattle mentally incapable of putting the round peg in the round hole and (4) are such delicate hothouse flowers we are sure to sprint from our parishes in tears upon hearing the change from "all" to "many."
We hear over and over that we are the "most-educated laity in the history of the Church." We have lay pastoral education initiatives out the wazoo. Adult education programs are a priority of the Church in America. But we simply can't get this one. Right. I mean, just imagine the spontaneous combustions that will occur when us poor dears read that the Lord uses "for many" in the Last Supper narratives in Matthew and Mark.
Sounds like someone's condescending ox is getting gored.
Bishop Trautman is sort of like a reverse liturgical parrot in a coal mine. That is if some form of liturgy starts to give him problems - it is near an infallible sign that it is good liturgy. If he feels comfortable run for your life and attend a different Mass. Dale is exactly right on this form of criticism. The argument would imply that all the centuries of the Latin Mass that nobody understood this theological point or for that any any current translation in any language that does not use a form of all.
Amy Welborn also makes some excellent comments in reference to this and other arguments by Bishop Trautman.
Known as 
I maintain that Trautperson tells us more about himself than about "the laity," in discussing intellectual capacity.
His is an iconic case of "projection."
Hm, maybe then he is also in favor of changing Matthew 26:28 in the New American Bible to read "for all" instead of the current "for many," because people might misunderstand.
When will the spirit of V2 generation just go away?
Why do the libs get so worked up about this? We go to a Ukrainian Catholic parish, and I'll give you three guesses as to how they translate this into English . . .
Perhaps bishops such as this hold out hope that the "all" signifies a wider contributions base than the "many." What they refuse to acknowledge is that the "most" couldn't care less. Or they may be catering to their imagined fan-base, a thought which is, pro multis, laughable.
The argument would imply that all the centuries of the Latin Mass that nobody understood this theological point or for that any any current translation in any language that does not use a form of all.
It implies no such thing. Saying that making this change at this time in this culture will cause one specific form of confusion is not at all the same as saying that "for many" is intrinsically difficult to understand for all people at all times.
We may think that the change to "for many" is worthwhile, but let's not kid ourselves. This change (as is the case with most changes) is going to cause some confusion.