I fully realize that the question I am about to pose may easily become the poster child for the esoteric question of the month, but I shall proceed even in face of that threat.

Is "pro multis" the new "filioque?"

For several years now, the phrase "pro multis," which is found in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, was translated into English and several other European languages as "for all." This translation dates to the 1960's with the introduction of the vernacular following the Second Vatican Council. During the past decade, there has been an increasingly assertive effort to translate this phrase as "for many." This later translation has become the sanctioned version as the Church hierarchy struggles to standardize the translation into European languages including English.

As this discussion is played out on the stage of the Roman Catholic Church and within the Catholic press, I am reminded of an earlier dispute over a phrase and a thousand years of irreconcilable differences. The First Council of Nicaea in 325AD established the form for the Profession of Faith, which became known as the Nicene Creed. It was later amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Late in the sixth century, the phrase "filioque" or "from the son" was added by Latin speaking churches. In 1054, it was formally incorporated into the Creed to be used within the Latin Rite or Roman Catholic Church. The dispute, which resulted from this unilateral revision by one branch of Christendom, resulted in the Schism of 1054. This is essentially a revision of text and not a revision of theology. This division between the Western and Orthodox churches persists to this day. Ingrained in almost 1,000 years of history, it appears that it will persist another 1,000 years.

I find it difficult to understand how a sound theological basis can be offered in defense of the correctness of the "for many" and the error of the "for all." The four gospels have difference versions of these words. Scholars are of the opinion that the Latin language does not differentiate between the phrase "for all" and "for many." One also needs to remember that Latin is the third or more translation of the original allegedly spoken by Christ. If the Christian message has any universality, then "for all" would certainly seem to be preferred.

I realize this is but one example of the dynamic equivalent vs. literal interpretation dispute within the Catholic Church which is approaching something akin to a Fifty Year War and which promises little more than mutually assured destruction or an arms' race which consumes precious resources much in demand elsewhere.