WDTPRS: What Did The Pope Really Say? 1 – UPDATES [here we go again...]

WDTPRS ^ | 10/1/2013 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[markomalley]

I finally got the glacial site of the vile Italian daily La Repubblica to cough up the latest Franciscan interview… in Italian.

When I read in the English version that Pope allegedly said,

“The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood”,

I said to myself, “That can’t be right. Swap out brotherhood with something like ‘sisterhood’ and he sounds like an LCWR nun, and he is no fan of theirs or of their ‘female machismo’!”  No! Allow me to amend.  None of them would have said that.  They’ve grown beyond Jesus and words like “son”.  But you get my drift.  The Second Person of the Trinity did not incarnate in the “souls of men”.

So… What Did The Pope Really Say?  My emphasis.

Il Figlio di Dio si è incarnato per infondere nell’anima degli uomini il sentimento della fratellanza….

The Son of God was incarnate in order to instill in soul of men the feeling of brotherhood.

Perhaps better… “awareness… sense” of brotherhood?

I would like to take that “sentimento” in the Italian sense of “awareness”, but since Pope Francis is fundamentally a Spanish speaker, I don’t know what he meant by it here. I suspect we have to hear “sentimento/sentimiento” as “feeling”.  Honestly, my Spanish isn’t quite strong enough yet to hear that possible nuance behind the Italian.  In Italian I would have said something like, “consapevolezza”… or, now that I think of it, “senso”.

We have to be careful with the reports about what Francis said.  We have to check the English version of the interview against the Italian.

I am sure there will be other examples.

UPDATE:

In the meantime, the vile La Repubblica has this as a headline right now, filtered to you from a twit on Twitter:

“Questo Papa è il Rohani del Vaticano”… “This Pope is the Rohani of the Vatican”.

Yah… that’s right.  Talk about not getting this at all.

UPDATE:

From a reader:

Pope Francis–“Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.”

Here, man “conceives” what is good or evil. Conceiving what is good or evil on an individual level is Moral Relativism.

Catholic Church in GS 16

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects [Latin detegit] a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.

Here, man “detects a law” in his conscience he must be “obedient” to. Conscience “reveals that law”, not “conceived” by each according to one’s liking.

How do we reconcile these things that seem to be in direct opposition?

It think you may be over analyzing this on the basis of the English alone.

What Did The Pope Really Say?

Ciascuno ha una sua idea del Bene e del Male e deve scegliere di seguire il Bene e combattere il Male come lui li concepisce….

Each person has his idea of Good and of Evil and he must choose to follow Good and combat Evil as he perceives / understands them…

In this case, Italian “concepire” is clear understood in the sense of “understand, believe, perceive”, maybe even “grasp” and not English “conceive” in the sense of making something up on one’s own, as in “devise”.

In English we can say that “he conceived a plan”, which is something that he comes up with.  Otherwise, we can say that “he couldn’t conceive what she was rattling on about”, which means that he didn’t understand, couldn’t workout out what she was saying.  Be careful of “false friends” in translation. Sometimes similar words do not have the same meaning or the same impact.

Let’s turn back to your citation of GS16 with that “detects”.  Latin detego, detexi, detectum (compound of tego “to cover, hide”) is, in the first place, “to un-cover, lay bare” and also to “dis-cover, dis-close, de-tect”.

From Vatican website: In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience.  Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that.

Latin (doesn’t hack up the sentence): In imo conscientiae legem homo detegit, quam ipse sibi non dat, sed cui obedire debet, et cuius vox, semper ad bonum amandum et faciendum ac malum vitandum eum advocans, ubi oportet auribus cordis sonat: fac hoc, illud devita.

Fr. Z: In the depths of conscience man discovers the law which he does not give to himself, but which he is obliged to obey, and whose voice, always summoning him to do good and to avoid evil, whenever it is necessary rings in the ears of the heart: do this, shun that.

There is juridical language: lex, advoco.  However, the Holy Spirit is referred to in language both juridical and moral: Advocate, Counselor.  Advoco can also mean “console” and the Holy Spirit is called Consoler.

I love the image GS16 invokes: the “law’s voice summons” us to obligations, to obedience, to action.  It is as if we are, in the moment of “discovery” of the previously hidden evidence in the case, then placed before the bar in a moment of truth, when we are called to act justly and truthly in the face of the evidence that has been uncovered.

I digress.

I don’t see much daylight between Francis’ “concepisce”, rightly understood, and the GS 16 detegit.

[cothrige]

I suppose popes don't contradict Catholic dogma because they modify the dogma before they make their pronouncements. And then you have a bunch of Catholics telling us we're crazy. It's like the news media protecting this administration.

What you write here sounds ridiculous to me, as a Catholic, because of course I know that dogma cannot be altered or rescinded. However, I have actually read other Catholics amazingly argue that a pope cannot be a heretic because anything they say would automatically be Catholic dogma. Silly, of course, and not at all Catholic, but it does show one side of the current state of the modern Church. It isn't just the raging liberals who have problems.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"-That his teaching is in error, that he is somehow wrong and FRoman Catholics are the final judge on what is and isn't true Roman Catholicism."

AHa. There's your problem.

The final judge would never be FReeper Catholics ruling on what is or isn't true Roman Catholicism.

The final judge would be: is this a teaching of the Church? (Meaning, does this go back to the Deposit of Faith, the Faith as handed on from the Apostles, as developed and interpreted over 20 centuries by Councils and Popes teaching authoritatively? Is this in continuity? Is this coherent? Is this kosher?)

Speediest way to do that is, to check it out with the...

Catechism (Link)

which is a handy-dandy summary of All That. With Blessed Keyword Searchability.

I keep begging people to click on the Catechism. It really is a good key to (Pope Benedict's fave word)...

Continuity

Christ teaches through the Church. The Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth. So the question is:

Is he thinking with the Church?

[Elsie]

It's all Greek to me!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please vet mine at #42!

[cothrige]

I'm hearing that Cardinals can elect the "wrong man", that Cardinals can resist the Holy Spirit, and that Popes can make statements in opposition to doctrine and dogma which have to be corrected or reinterpreted later.

You know I am simply amazed that there are people out there who have really thought that the Cardinals could not elect the "wrong man." One would have to have a pretty wacky sense of history and/or God's prerogatives in order to think otherwise. It seems to me, though, that the biggest problem in all of this is the oversimplified musings of Catholics regarding things they don't fully understand. For instance, I have been told by priests, priests mind you, that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Needless to say numerous Catholics in the pews have also argued and promoted this idea. Nonsense of course, and not in the least reflective of Church teaching, but it is a common meme thrown about by people in discussing the Eucharist.

Papal authority is also affected by this kind of simplistic reasoning, and that is why people are now trying to reinterpret things that the pope is spouting everywhere. They need to clean up his comments or they will have to reassess their overstated ideas of the papacy.

[onedoug]

This guy makes me nervous.

[Elsie]

 

 

HMMMmmm...

I thought Pete was???

[Gamecock]

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope

Sorry. According to the Roman Catholic Catechism, it is the Pope.

[daniel1212]

I'm hearing that Cardinals can elect the "wrong man", that Cardinals can resist the Holy Spirit, and that Popes can make statements in opposition to doctrine and dogma which have to be corrected or reinterpreted later.

Whenever they do so then they are interpreted otherwise. See contrasts here .

[daniel1212]

But, that presumes that the pope would want to be careful and not release statements that contradict Catholic dogma. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and all these interviews actually indicate the opposite to me. After the last one all the Franciscan apologists came out to nuance many of his more egregious comments and show how they could, if you squinted just right, and interpreted this word with an archaic meaning from the Middle Ages, make something almost, but not quite, exactly unlike Catholicism with them. And then what does the pope do? He doubles down on it and gives another whopper of an interview for them to try to dance around. Does that sound like somebody who is just being misinterpreted, or is misspeaking? Not to me. I think he means just what he is saying, and all of the apologists are just fooling themselves and all of us.

Refreshing honest comment. I think Francis is misinterpreted by both sides, but he is clearly unlike the typical TRCs (traditional RCs) i see doing most of the interpreting of their Interpreter.

[daniel1212]

“St. Paul is the one who laid down the cornerstones of our religion and our creed

HMMMmmm... I thought Pete was???

Where is your RCOPI

[HarleyD]

What you write here sounds ridiculous to me, as a Catholic, because of course I know that dogma cannot be altered or rescinded.

Dogma does gets altered or rescinded plenty of time. The Catholic church no longer support slavery as it did in the 17th Century. And if you read through the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, I sincerely doubt that the pope will grant you absolution if you marched into the Middle East and started a fight with the Muslims. Should we mention the ever changing doctrine on Mary? Catholics just don't understand their history. I would call your attention to the Catholic News Agency:

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4. Catholic News Agency on Vatican II

Did you ever read such doublespeak? Nothing has changed but Christ wills is our will and this is what He wills (that it be changed). The Church "deepened, developed and more fully explained it" is code words for change. If you go to the Catholic encyclopedia New Advent, you will find these same statements in regards to the atonement, justification, sanctification, and a host of other Christian dogma. The Church makes no excuses, it does change it's teachings (see US Catholic, How Does the Church Teaching Changes

Catholic teaching (yes dogma) has changed. They simply don't want to admit it. And, with this new pope, you can probably expect more changes. It will be interesting to see if he brings on board a female Cardinal. But we'll just hear that this has always been the teaching-it's just evolving.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Gamecock, from your first quote, ponder the words:

"the Pope and the bishops in communion with him".

That means that the Magisterium of which we speak, is an authority which is shared by the popes (whether they be bad, good, frail, robust, theological geniuses, theological retards, etc.)--- and the bishops in communion with him. It is is not the personal characteristic of one man and his particular talents.

"charism of infallibility"

This is not a positive charism ("he'll always say the right thing, at the right time, in the right way") but a negative one (he will be prevented from saying anything that could lead the whole Church into error.) It is not a license: it's a limit.

Obviously everything a Pope says cannot be infallible. Let me give some examples of when this charism is not in play:

• meteorological observations ("think it'll rain?")
• papal diplomacy ("should I dialog with Hassan Rouhani?")
• disciplinary matters ("should I depose Archbishop Wuerl?")
• personal practice ("should I eat trayfe with gentiles?")
• haute couture ("red shoes or black?")
• strategic mission decisions ("win back France? or go gung-ho for Africa?")
• theological opinions (when opined without expressly invoking his authority as universal pastor).

That last one in particular means that when Pope Benedict writes and publishes a book during his pontificate, e.g. "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives" (2012), or when Pope Francis gets interviewed on an airplane, or writes a letter to the editor of La Repubblica, it's of great interest to the faithful (and the infidels as well, I suppose) but it is not dogma per se and not infallible.

And when you quoted Para 100 of the Catechism, why did you inexplicably cut off the last eight words of the relevant sentence?

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Who do you think you are, Reuters?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mine at 53.

[Gamecock]

Can you provide the sources for that? If not thanks for interpreting the catechism for us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Kudos for going to the Catechism, Gamecock. It works well in whole sentences, and even better in whole paragraphs.

Para #100

and

Para #891 and Para #892

Please note modifying adjectives and clauses like "as supreme pastor" (not in other roles)... "proclaims by a definitive act" (not in other ways)...."pertaining to faith and morals (not pertaining to other things) ..."is also present in the body of bishops" (not confined to pope).

If anyone expresses an interest, I'll go through the whole thing phrase by phrase.

Please hold me excused for now, though. I've got to make some signs for our prayer vigil at the abortuary tomorrow. Our previous ones got rained on repeatedly, and are looking rather shabby.

If I may ask, please pray for us.

[Gamecock]

I'm talking about your explanation of the Catechism. Please provide authoritative teaching on the subject.

And I have been to the Catechism before. There one can read all about the Roman Catholic church schmoozing up to Islam.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Just running thru to say: "No, we're schmoozing up to Muslims. As contrasted to Islam."

Mo' later.

[smvoice]

Is there a difference between Muslims and Islam? Just like there is a difference between Christians and professing Christians?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“What you write here sounds ridiculous to me, as a Catholic, because of course I know that dogma cannot be altered or rescinded.”

---

You do realize this is circular, right? As a Catholic you cannot believe that dogma can be altered or rescinded. Therefore, you know that dogma cannot be altered or rescinded. Even though, actually, it is, and quite frequently.