Over at Pontifications someone threw his hat into the ring about the pro multis question. Over there you can read:
I’m all in favor of correct or superior translations of biblical and liturgical texts, and therefore I support the restoration of the pro multus [sic]. But it does appear to me that too much is being made about this change. If the change signified a return to hard-core Augustinianism, then the matter would be worth passionate debate; but clearly this is not what is happening. The Catholic Church is absolutely and definitively committed to the unviersal salvific will of God and the universality of Christ’s work of atonement, coupled with the recognition that sinners, including those who have been born again by water and Spirit, possess the freedom to say no to Christ. The seriousness of hell and damnation cannot and should not be denied. The question of our eternal destiny is too important.
However, some folks are talking as if they actually know that only many, perhaps few, will be saved.
He has a point. Only God knows what is going on with this. However, I think we can be reasonably sure that someone in the history of mankind has refused to be God’s friend. Whaddya think? Reasonable? If hell is a reality and if one is unfortunately there destined, then "all" are not saved.
The post at Pontifications interjects a good point, however. We cannot be sure about God’s judgments or His mercy. I will add at the same time that we must not be presumptuous about God’s mercy. Humbly confident, yes, but not presumptuous.
Lest we think that too much is being made of the translation of the form of consecration of the Precious Blood, let us not forget that the way we pray has a reciprocal relationship with what we believe.