Jesus Died for All, Not Many:

Schismatics Falling into Calvinist Heresy

By Matt1618

This is a response to a charge that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is heretical in the Eucharistic liturgy. Here is the link that I am responding to: The New Mass It is filled with attacks of the supposed heresy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, otherwise sometimes known as Novus Ordo, when in the liturgy it declares during the Eucharistic prayer, that Jesus shed his blood for all.

PS. In this piece, I am not attacking all of those who prefer in the liturgy the saying that Christ ‘died for many’ instead of Christ died ‘for all’. In this piece, I am critiquing the idea that it is a heresy to say that Christ died for all. There are some who object to the saying of ‘for all’ instead of ‘for many’ because Jesus used those words when he did the first Eucharistic liturgy. Many of those people do not hold to the heresy which I am opposing in this piece. For a look at the arguments on liturgical grounds on the issue of ‘for many’ vs. ‘for all’, please look at the following piece: In Defense of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. (You will need to go down some) The piece that follows below is a look at what is indeed a heresy, that some ultratraditionalists hold to. I fully acknowledge that many ‘traditionalists’ or ‘ultratraditionalists’ who do prefer ‘for many’ do not hold to the arguments that I am opposing here.

Michael Sotor wrote The New Mass. Despite his arguments, it is unambiguous Catholic teaching that Christ indeed died for all. People such as Sotor who advocate the teaching that Christ did not die for all are not only Schismatics but heretics. I hate to be so blunt, but I have to tell the truth. Catholicism does not teach limited atonement, which says that Christ only died for some.

Just as Feeneyites misread past papal pronouncements to serve their private interpretations, those who attack the authority of Pope Paul VI when he changed the mass, and their successors who have also approved of the Mass, in their zeal to attack this mass, fall into heresy. A recent example of this was just shown on the Catholic Converts Message board, where the mentioned file was linked to ‘prove’ that the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI is heresy. Although I was tempted to ignore it, like others suggested, the statement that our recent Popes are heretical, because we allowed that Christ died for all”, in the liturgy, I feel, I had to respond to. In his zeal to attack the Mass of Pope Paul VI, Sotor lurches right into the arms of Calvinism by limiting the atonement of Christ to some. Calvinism has the theory that says God only died for the elect. The mentioned piece promulgated the idea that Christ died for only the elect, and charged that it was actually heretical for Catholics to believe that Christ died for all. Sotor in fact gives us a blatant misreading of papal statements to rationalize his attack on the Mass. It is ironic that those who attack the Mass of Pope Paul VI, as being too Protestantfall into a Protestant, Calvinist heresy long ago condemned by the Catholic Church. I will give Sotor’s comments in orange, and official catholic documents and citations I will color red. I will look at the Bible, Council declarations, and papal pronouncements. Then I will compare that with what Sotor wrote various Popes have said. I will give the actual context from which those papal statements are made, and show how Sotor’s analysis is in direct opposition to what those specific Popes said. Protestants in many cases misanalyze Scripture. Likewise, Schismatic 'Catholics' will often misanalyze past papal pronouncements and declarations. This is what happened here.

It is Catholic teaching that Christ died for all men. Salvation becomes a possibility for all. God sent his Son to die for all the world. Christ has given sufficient grace for the salvation of all. However, many do not respond to God's grace, and in fact many, due to their rejection of it, separate themselves from salvation and end up in hell. Whoever ends up in hell, end up there because of their own fault. Thus, when in the liturgy, the priest says Christ shed his blood for all, it is very much in tune with Catholic and Biblical teaching. However, Sotor holds that Jesus did not shed his blood for some, and even if some people wanted to, they could not be saved. I have argued elsewhere that it is a legitimate to say that Christ shed his blood for all, as when Jesus says this in Mark 14:24, the term many can mean, ‘the many who are all.’ Please see the following for a discussion of the matter: In Defense of the Pauline Mass Go to section IV, IS “FOR ALL” AN INVALID TRANSLATION OF “PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS?”.

Catholic theology has always distinguished between the “objective redemption” of all men by Christ, and the “subjective redemption” whereby the grace merited by Christ on the Cross actually proves fruitful only in the case of those who cooperate with His grace and achieve salvation.

Ludwig Ott, in his Pre-Vatican II classic, 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' writes:

“The universality of Christ’s vicarious atonement is to be related to the objective redemption only. Christ rendered sufficient atonement for all men without exception. The subjective appropriation of the fruits of redemption is, however, dependent on the fulfillment of certain conditions, on faith (Mk. 16:16), and on the observation of the commandments (Heb. 5:29), p. 197.


We can see that the teaching that Christ shed his blood for all is in tune with Scripture. Scripture is a binding source of revelation for Catholics. For example, 1 John 2:2 reveals that “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” What was his propitiation? A shedding of his blood. Thus, according to unambiguous Scriptural teaching, his blood was shed for the whole world, not merely the elect. The Church in no way contradicts this Scriptural teaching.

Paul also writes 2 Cor. 5:15: “And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”
He did not die only for some, or even many, but for all.

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

Jesus is a ransom for all. How was he a ransom for all? By shedding his blood for all. Paul, like John is unambiguous that Jesus died for all. He is even a Savior for all men, as Paul writes later, in the exact same letter: 1 Tim. 4:10:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

There are also other texts that show God wants all to be saved 2 Pet. 3:9, John 3:16, Acts 17:28. As Catholics we must believe that Scripture is inerrant in all that it teaches. Scripture unambiguously teaches that Christ shed his blood for all men. If Catholicism taught otherwise, it would be a heretical sect. Sotor thus teaches Catholicism is heretical when he says that Catholicism teaches that Jesus did not shed his blood for all.


Despite Sotor’s many skewed looks at certain quotes, on the contrary, the Catholic Church does teach that Christ indeed shed his blood for all.

Next we will go into official Catholic teaching. The Council of Trent De Fide (something that all Catholics who call themselves Catholics MUST BELIEVE) declares that Christ died for all, when it proclaims in Session 6 on justification, Chapter 2, to Calvinists, Schismatics, and professed ‘traditionalists’ alike:


Denzinger, 794 Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, "the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort" [2 Cor. 1:3], when that "blessed fullness of time" was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before the Law and at the time of the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law, and the "gentiles, who did not follow after justice, might attain to justice" [Rom. 9:30], and that all men "might receive the adoption of sons" [Gal. 4:5]. "Him God has proposed as a propitiator through faith in his BLOOD, for our sins" [Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world [1 John 2:2]]

It is amazing that those people who say that they are following the Tridentine Mass, which followed the Council of Trent, declare it a heresy to teach what Trent unambiguously teaches!!! Ironic indeed. It says that his blood is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. I.E. All. It even quotes 1 Jn 2:2, as shown earlier, which also unambiguously teaches that Christ dies for all.


Pope CLEMENT VI, years before the Jansenists came around, wrote: 1342-1352 Denzinger 550.[From the Bull of jubilee, "Unigenitus Dei Filius," Jan. 25:

The only begotten Son of God . . . "made unto us from God, wisdom, justice, sanctification and redemption" [1 Cor. 3], "neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by His own blood entered once into the holies having obtained eternal redemption" [Heb. 9:12]. "For not with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of His very (Son) as of a lamb unspotted and unstained He has redeemed us" [cf. 1 Pet. 1:18-19], who innocent, immolated on the altar of the Cross is known to have poured out not a little drop of blood, which however on account of union with the Word would have been sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but copiously as a kind of flowing stream, so that "from the soles of His feet even to the top of His Head no soundness was found in Him" [Is. 1:6].

Thus, Pope Clement VI, centuries before the Council of Trent wrote that Christ poured out blood which was sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race.

Sotor writes (all his comments are in orange):
Some 350 years ago, in addressing the errors of the Jansenists, Pope Innocent X (1644-1655) condemned as "false, rash, scandalous" the semi-Pelagian proposition that Christ died or shed His Blood for all men without exception. This holy Pope declared that it was "dishonoring to Divine Piety... and heretical" to say that "Christ died for the salvation of the impious, blasphemous, contumelious..." (Denzinger No. 1096)

Notice that Sotor does not even quote the proposition that was condemned. He just gives us his own, fatally flawed “analysis” . Why not? Because the proposition that was condemned by Pope Innocent X was the following:

1096 5. It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.

Sotor called it a semi-Pelagian proposition to hold that Christ shed His blood for all men. And then he says that this is what the Pope was condemning!!! How one can twist what one says, indeed. Remember, this very statement (that it is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ shed His blood for all men) is what the Pope condemned. In other words to hold that it is semi-Pelagian when one says Christ shed his blood for all men is heretical and condemned by the Pope. !!! Thus it is not semi-Pelagian to hold that Christ shed his blood for all men. Yet Sotor makes the very statement that is condemned by this Pope as heretical. By bringing this proposition up, he is pronouncing himself heretical.

This Calvinist, Jansenist proposition is condemned, not endorsed. This is the very proposition that those who attack the mass of Paul VI, endorse!!! No wonder he did not quote the proposition itself. The Jansenists, like the Calvinists were arguing that it was Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ shed his blood for all men. They argued that Christ shed his blood only for the elect!. This proposition is condemned not only by Scripture (1 Jn 2:2), but by the Pope he attempted to use for his own purposes. The Pope is saying that the idea that Christ died for all is not semi-Pelagian but true, that Christ did indeed shed His blood for all men.

Pope Innocent X then explains how this is true, when he further explains the condemnation of the proposition. Notice that not only did Sotor not quote the papal proposition itself, (I guess we were supposed to take Sotor's word rather than Pope Innocent's word), but he then does not quote the whole context of the Pope’s further reasons for this condemnation. He only quoted, "dishonoring to Divine Piety... and heretical" to say "Christ died for the salvation of the impious, blasphemous, contumelious”. Notice what the Pope actually said:

Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and intended in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical.

The context is the question 'who did Christ died for?' Notice that the Pope puts in the same category the predestined and the impious. It is blatantly misrepresentative to say that the Pope taught that Christ did not die for the Salvation of the unsaved. Christ died for them as well. The author slyly left it out of his piece, in which it would seem that the Pope is only condemning the proposition that he died for all. When the words “the predestined” are put into the same sentence by the pope, we thus see that the pope is indeed affirming the idea that he died for the impious as well as the pious. Thus, the Pope is writing the very opposite of what Sotor wrote. Now of course the pope is not teaching the salvation of all mankind, as there are many who do end up in hell. It is just that all have the opportunity for salvation. Now whether the grace that is made available to all is actually efficacious for his or her own salvation, is another matter. Many indeed reject God and his commandments, and will bring about their condemnation. Nevertheless, as the Pope mentions, Christ did die for all, and it is rash and scandalous to say otherwise. It is much more dishonoring to God to declare that God made people, with absolutely no chance for salvation, and when he sent his Son, his only purpose was to condemn them to hell, and they did not even have a chance for salvation. It is true many reject salvation, but it is not God’s fault. Those who go to hell go by their own actions, be it disbelief and/or disobedience to God.

Sotor next writes: Next Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) condemned this same error in two Apostolic Constitutions: Ad Sacram Beati PETRI sedemn, Oct. 16, 1656 and Cum Occasione, May 31, 1658 (Denzinger Nos. 1096 & 1098)

Then Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1891) declared and condemned as "scandalous, rash, an offense to pious ears and erroneous" the proposition that "Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful." (Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690, Denzinger No. 1294)

Sotor again misreads Pope Alexander VIII, just as he did Pope Innocent X. Remember, this proposition was condemned. I will grant that at least this time he gives us the proposition that was condemned. Notice that what is condemned is that he died only for the elect, and the faithful. In other words, Jesus did not die only for the faithful. Indeed, Jesus died for all. It does not condemn the idea that Christ died for all, but what was condemned was that he only died for the faithful. This particular attack on the Mass of Pope Paul VI, is that Christ did not die for all, and that Christ only died for the faithful!!! Actually, that is exactly the proposition that the Pope condemns. By direct inference, then, Pope Alexander does declare that Christ did die for all, again affirming Trent. To declare otherwise is thus scandalous, rash, an 'offense to pious ears and erroneous.'

Jansen imitated Calvinists heretics who used St. Augustine to support his proposition that God only died for some, not all. In this same decree, Pope Alexander VIII wrote in Denzinger 1295, proposition 8.

This Pope even wrote that sufficient grace is provided Jews, Pagans and heretics when he condemns the proposition that (Remember, these propositions are condemned):

5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.

Again, this Jansenist, Calvinist proposition is condemned. The Pope thus teaches that it is heretical to believe that pagans and Jews do not have sufficient grace. Obviously no one gets any grace at all, if the blood of Christ has not been shed for them. Those who had followed Jansen ignored the Council of Trent and the popes before and after that Council, which declared that Christ shed his blood for all. Jansen had quoted St. Augustine who affirmed that Christ did not shed his blood for all. That is one unfortunate error that St. Augustine had. He believed that God actively, positively predestined the damnation of many, in other words double predestination. St. Augustine was wrong on this matter, and the magisterium shows this quite clearly.

6. Finally, reaffirming the condemnations of Pope Alexander VII, Pope Clement XI (1700-1721) declared the proposition that Christ shed His Blood for all men "must be rejected and condemned as heretical by all the Faithful of Christ, not only by word of mouth but also in heart. (and) that all who hold or preach or teach or assert by word of writing (this heretical proposition)... We declare, decree, state and ordain... that all, as transgressors of the Apostolic Constitutions Ad Sacram Beati PETRI Sedem and Cum Occasione, come under each and every individual censure and penalty of those Constitutions." (Apostolic Constitution Vinean Domin Sabaoth, July 16, 1705; Denzinger No. 1350)

Pope Clement XI does affirm the condemnation of Jansen. Remember, Jansen affirmed that Christ did not die for all men!!! Thus, the Pope writes:

Denzinger, 1350, "An Obsequious Silence in Regard to Dogmatic Facts" 1301 From the Constitution, "Vineam Domini Sabaoth," July 16. 1705The obedience which is due to the aforesaid apostolic constitutions is not satisfied by any obsequious silence; but the sense of that book of Jansen which has been condemned in the five propositions(see Denzinger 1096 already stated, which declares it heretical to believe that it is Semi-Pelagian that Christ died for all.) whose meaning the words of those propositions express clearly, must be rejected and condemned as heretical by all the faithful of Christ, not only by word of mouth but also in heart; and one may not lawfully subscribe to the above formula with any other mind, heart, or belief, so that all who hold or preach or teach or assert by word or writing anything contrary to what all these propositions mean, and to what each single one means we declare, decree, state, and ordain, with this same apostolic authority, that all, as transgressors of the aforementioned apostolic constitutions, come under each and every individual censure and penalty of those constitutions.

We thus see that those who follow the Jansenist view that Christ did not die for all 'condemned and rejected as heretical by all the faithful of Christ.' We thus see that Christ did indeed die for all, without any question. All throughout history the Church has unambiguously taught that he shed his blood for all. It is not some horrid modernism, but a reaffirmation of a long held truth. Was Pope St. Clement of Rome infected with modernism when he wrote in his letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7:

Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, (1) which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. It is true that the Tridentine Mass uses the phrase that he shed his blood for many, per Jesus’ words, and even insisted on that phrase. However, nowhere did it ever say that this was the only phrase ever to be mentioned in any mass. And it obviously did not mean that it would be heretical to say that Christ died for all. After all, the Council of Trent made a 'De Fide' declaration that Christ did die for all.

When we actually read what the Popes write, they affirm this Council of Trent teaching. He did not shed his blood only for many, but all. We have the Bible teach unambiguously teach that Jesus shed his blood for all (1 John 2:2, others). For anybody who say that they follow the Council of Trent, they must believe that he shed his blood for all. All the Popes before, and all the Popes prior, affirm this teaching. Was the Council of Trent infected with modernism? No. It is indeed impious (according to many popes) to state, that Christ did not shed his blood for all. Thus, when the Mass that we celebrate declares that his blood has been shed for all, it is indeed not heresy, but reflects a long held truth. To say that Jesus did not die for all, is heretical and different from what the Bible and the infallible magisterium teaches. If one teaches limited atonement, one joins forces with the Calvinist, and Jansenist heretics long ago condemned by the Catholic Church. Those who follow this teaching can not even pretend to be faithful Catholics.

To all visitors Grace of Christ to you!

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page


Go to Matt’s Ultratraditionalist Page

© 1998 Jesus Died for All, Not Many: A Refutation of Schismatic Heresy ....By Matt1618. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written consent of the author.