Leo's “For All”: The Resurrection of a Lie and the March to Universal Salvation

Leo XIV revives the Novus Ordo’s most infamous distortion, Will Trad Inc. now defend what they once condemned?

Pentecost has not yet arrived, but the modernist fires are already burning.

On May 31, during his ordination homily in St. Peter’s Basilica, Leo XIV openly revived one of the most scandalous errors of the post-conciliar liturgy: the mistranslation of the words of consecration in the Eucharistic rite.

“You will make his words your own in every Eucharist: it is ‘for you and for all.’”
— Leo XIV, Ordination Homily, May 31, 2025

This was no improvisation. The phrase was presented as the very words of consecration. In one of the most sacred moments of Catholic liturgy, before the entire world, Leo XIV resurrected the most infamous distortion of the Novus Ordo era.

The Return of the Heresy in the Words of Christ

This phrase, “for all,” was the defining liturgical lie of the Novus Ordo for nearly four decades. It misrepresented the Latin pro multis as a universalist formula, contradicting the teaching of Christ and the explicit theology of the Church. It was corrected under Benedict XVI, who ordered all vernacular translations to finally conform to pro multis: “for many.” But Leo XIV has now restored the deception in the most public and solemn setting possible, consecrating new priests under a cloud of doctrinal subversion.

For decades after the Council, English-speaking Catholics were subjected to the mistranslation "for all," a change condemned not only by theologians and linguists, but by the Catechism of the Council of Trent itself:

"The additional words for you and for many are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race... With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

This Catechism, issued under Pope St. Pius V, makes clear the distinction: Christ died for all sufficiently, but only many receive the fruits. “For all” obliterates that distinction, flattens the doctrine of grace, and sneaks in universalism through the language of the Mass. In other words: “for many” guards against universalism. “For all” feeds it.

The Catechism goes on to note that while “for many” is not essential to the form of the sacrament, the meaning of the words cannot be changed. The priest must express Christ’s intention, and the Church must guard it. If a new formula introduces a fundamentally different theology, the sacrament itself is placed in jeopardy.

That is why traditional priests, theologians, and bishops condemned “for all” so forcefully. They understood that the liturgy is not a slogan. It is the public worship of the Church, and her principal teacher.

In 2006, Benedict XVI ordered the bishops of the world to begin correcting the translation. In his letter to the German episcopate, he clarified that pro multis “was deliberately translated as ‘for many,’ to express a fundamental difference” between universal redemption and personal salvation. English-speaking nations finally conformed in 2011.

Now Leo XIV has publicly rolled it back.

And he did not do so off-the-cuff. These words were prepared in a formal homily, read from the pulpit of St. Peter’s Basilica, before the ordinands and the world. The significance is hard to overstate: priests were ordained by a pope who openly contradicted the Roman Rite’s catechism, the Church’s dogmatic theology, and the express order of his predecessor.

This was not merely a homiletic aside. The phrase “for all” was also printed in the official Vatican libretto for the ordination Mass itself. The consecration formula for the Precious Blood reads: “versato per voi e per tutti in remissione dei peccati”—“poured out for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” This text appears in the heart of the Eucharistic Prayer, accompanied by the rubric instructing the Holy Father to elevate the chalice. In other words, this is not commentary, paraphrase, or introduction; it is the liturgical formula of consecration itself. The “for all” mistranslation has been deliberately restored, not only in spoken form, but in the official worship texts of the Vatican.

Some are now claiming that Leo XIV was merely “following the Italian translation,” as if this excuses the error. But this misses the point. In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI explicitly ordered all bishops’ conferences to correct the mistranslation of pro multis as “for all” and render it faithfully as “for many.” While English-speaking countries obeyed by 2011, Italy never implemented the change. Their continued use of “per tutti” is not tradition; it is disobedience. Leo XIV had every opportunity to correct it. Instead, he affirmed it in a homily, endorsed it in a papal Mass booklet, and made it the theological model for the next generation of priests. This was not reluctant compliance. It was active resurrection.

It was also a signal.

From Universalist Mystic to Universalist Mass?

On May 14, Leo XIV gave an address during the Jubilee of Oriental Churches. In it, he approvingly cited Isaac of Nineveh, a seventh-century Nestorian bishop who died outside communion with Rome. Isaac belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East, rejected the Council of Chalcedon, and taught a form of mystical universalism. He has long been associated with the belief that Hell is not eternal, but rather a purgative experience that ultimately leads all souls, including demons, toward healing and reconciliation.

Leo quoted him with reverence, calling him “a great Eastern Father,” and echoed his theology of hope: “The greatest sin is not to believe in the power of the Resurrection.” The Vatican transcript refers to him as “Saint Isaac of Nineveh,” despite the fact that Isaac was never canonized and was long excluded from Catholic liturgical calendars. His inclusion in the Roman Martyrology by Francis was already scandalous; Leo’s unqualified praise takes that further. This is not a scholar citing a complex figure. It is a Roman pontiff presenting a heretical mystic as a spiritual authority without clarification, context, or concern.

Isaac’s theology of Hell is unambiguous. He writes:

“It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which He knew even before they were fashioned.”

And elsewhere:

“Gehenna is also a mystery, created in order to bring to a state of perfection those who had not reached it during their lifetime.”

For Isaac, Hell is neither eternal nor retributive. It is therapeutic and temporary. It is, essentially, purgatory by another name. Leo XIV’s decision to quote him in a papal address, in a favorable light and under the title “saint,” is a theological signal that cannot be ignored.

This was the first signal: a Roman pontiff, in a major public address, presented a mystical universalist as a model of sanctity.”

The second came on May 31, when Leo told his priests to say “for all.”

Together, these acts suggest a theological project already underway. A program to universalize the liturgy. To soften its boundaries. To replace particular redemption with an indiscriminate embrace.

And he is doing it in plain sight.

The logic is clear: if Leo believes we can hold up an unapologetic universalist from a heretical sect as a model of sanctity, and if he is now returning to the “for all” formula in the consecration, then the message is unmistakable.

Universal salvation is back.

Will Trad Inc. Defend It?

For decades, traditional Catholics fiercely condemned the mistranslation of pro multis as “for all.” They rightly argued that the error obscured the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for many, not a universalist meal. It was condemned not merely as a mistranslation, but as a doctrinal distortion.

Now the same error has returned; this time not as a rogue vernacular innovation, but as the declared formula of the Bishop of Rome in the most solemn context of priestly ordination.

Figures like Msgr. Klaus Gamber and Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler long ago recognized the danger of this phrase. Gamber, a mentor to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, warned that changing “for many” to “for all” undermined the theology of the sacrament. Stickler agreed, calling the alteration “a grave theological error.” While debates continue about whether such a mistranslation invalidates the Mass, what is not debated is that it distorts the words of Christ and the doctrine of the Church.

Traditionalists once knew this. They spent decades insisting on it. Now, with Leo XIV openly promoting the same distortion, will they fall silent to preserve ‘access’ and Summorum privileges; trading truth for permission? Will they defend the indefensible just to avoid a showdown? Will the same outlets that called Francis’s liturgical reforms a rupture now defend Leo’s slogan as pastoral wisdom? Will bishops who once cited the Council of Trent to oppose “for all” now say it’s not a big deal? Will commentators who demanded a correction in 2011 now remain silent as the correction is undone?

The restoration movement is at a crossroads. The very error that once defined the crisis has returned, smiling, at the hands of a pope they pretended would be better.

This is not merely about words. It is about truth. And if the “for all” heresy becomes normalized again, with the blessing of those who once opposed it, then the final capitulation of Traditionalist Inc. will be complete.

The question is no longer whether the crisis continues. The question is: who still has the courage to resist it?

Their response, or lack thereof, will reveal everything.

Conclusion: No More Excuses

The resurrection of ‘for all’ is not a mistranslation, it is a message. It is a doctrinal rupture. The use of Isaac of Nineveh is not ecumenism. It is the endorsement of mystical universalism.

Two signals in the same month. Two messages from the same pope.

The question now is not whether Leo XIV is continuing the revolution.

The question is: will anyone in the traditional world still resist it?