Thursday, October 16, 2014

Lost in Translation: The Sequel gets five thumbs down

Don't tell me that traditionalists and orthodox Catholics have gotten upset over nothing with the latest from the Synod.

I've defended what I thought and think is the Pope's approach to these issues. I've been behind a new way of communicating. I can accept some amount of gradualism, and certainly some criticism of how conservatives have communicated this.

But no, don't come to me after LGB activists are celebrating and cheering on the Pope, talking openly about how the Church is being co-opted to become more friendly towards gay marriage and same-sex sexual act - not the first time, might I add - and tell me that no, it's because of an ambiguous mistranslation in this part. And do not further suggest that it's the CONSERVATIVES who made this silly misunderstanding, when most of the world seems to have done exactly that.

More than that, if there was a mistranslation - then clarify. As Burke said, it's time for this pope to clearly and unambiguously - if only once - state the moral facts of these matters. There are more people to be concerned about than people who openly oppose natural law and Catholic moral teaching. It is not acceptable to leave them twisting in the wind and feeling betrayed for the sake of making Andrew fucking Sullivan cheerful. And if this Pope and this Synod can't manage that, then they'll be to the church what Pope Leo X was.

11 comments:

BenYachov said...

@Crude

>Because I'm tired of that. We went through the 'oh goodness it was just a poor translation when the Pope said a bunch of ridiculous liberal bullshit' schtick already. What a shock - there's a major backlash, including by cardinals in attendance at the Synod, and now we get to hear a day late about how maybe possibly there was a mistranslation at one part, and if only we imagine what the other interpretation should be and extrapolate it...


Crude the Vatican Website Itself says [Unofficial Translation]
See for yourself:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

Maybe they should have waited to put out a better translation but then other Conservatives and Traditionalists have complained about the lack of transparency and that the Vatican is trying to control the the narrative .
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2014/10/phil-lawler-whats-wrong-with-this-synod.html

I can hear them now. "Why don't we know what was in the relatio post disceptationem!"

Damned if you do.....etc

>No. I stand with Burke. I can deal with mercy. I have endorsed the Pope's call for a new tone repeatedly. But now it's time for the Pope to clearly, and for all to hear, endorse orthodox Catholic teaching. If he can't manage that, then it's clear that insofar as the Holy Spirit is at work in the church, it will largely be working in spite of him.

Even Pius IX consulted every bishop in the world (by written correspondence) before he defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Jimmy Akin’s take is pretty good here in light of history.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/battles-in-the-church-and-how-you-can-help/

>The Pope welcomes and tolerates people who come to him calling for people in open and unabashed same-sex relationships and the like to be welcome in the church. If he can't welcome and tolerate me for asking what I'm asking, that's his problem.

You can ask (and I assume if you could do it in person you would be polite & respectful about it 1 Tim 5:1) but he is not obligated to do it your way. It is his call.

Crude said...

Crude the Vatican Website Itself says

How many 'translation' problems have they had now? And how many times has the 'translation problem' resulted in unqualified cheering from the left?

Burke, Muller and the rest are *at this synod*. They're upset too.

Maybe they should have waited to put out a better translation but then other Conservatives and Traditionalists have complained about the lack of transparency and that the Vatican is trying to control the the narrative .

The conservatives and traditionalists have complained about THAT precisely because of the repeated liberal tilt that has been given, and encouraged, up to this point. The conservatives - not bloggers, but actual cardinals - are fighting back. As well they should.

Jimmy Akin’s take is pretty good here in light of history.

Jimmy Akin is describing this as a battle in the church that the faithful need to act on in order to help. But you're telling me that there's much ado about nothing, everything is fine, it was all a mistranslation.

Which is it? These are not compatible statements.

You can ask (and I assume if you could do it in person you would be polite & respectful about it 1 Tim 5:1) but he is not obligated to do it your way. It is his call.

No, he's not. Nor am I obligated to pretend he's something other than Pope Leo X if that's what he turns out to be.

BenYachov said...

@Crude

>How many 'translation' problems have they had now? And how many times has the 'translation problem' resulted in unqualified cheering from the left?

This time they put a warning label on it ahead of time unlike the Scalfari interview so I don’t know what to tell you? As for the cheering of the Left they are in “We are here! We are Queer! We don’t want anymore Bears!” mode 24/7. They are the same people who put a man on the cover of the Advocate who called efforts to promote gay marriage and gay adoption the work of the Devil. Where as some poor hillbilly says something more mild against homesex & mentions only God can judge he is hung out to dry. If they where rational and consistent they would either praise both men or condemn them both.

But that is who we are dealing with.

>Burke, Muller and the rest are *at this synod*. They're upset too.

I think it is a little presumptuous to project emotional states on the Cardinals but they are clearly concerned, expressing those concerns and doing their jobs.
But it is not our place to do their jobs. We have to do the job of laity not substitute bishops. I think we can both agree on this.

>The conservatives and traditionalists have complained about THAT precisely because of the repeated liberal tilt that has been given, and encouraged, up to this point. The conservatives - not bloggers, but actual cardinals - are fighting back. As well they should.

Like I am not at all against the Cardinals doing their jobs. They say after the First Assisi Ecumenical event (which then prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith Ratzinger refused to attend) Cardinal Ratzinger told St John Paul II they needed to clean up the Assisi even and he shared other concerns. That man is now Pope Emertus. Don’t you think he is doing the same?

>Jimmy Akin is describing this as a battle in the church that the faithful need to act on in order to help.

He is also showing us how this is not a new battle but the same one waged for 2000 years. Also he is telling people to act like layman not substitute clergy. He is telling people not to panic. Yet all I see from the Reactionaries is panic.

>But you're telling me that there's much ado about nothing, everything is fine, it was all a mistranslation.

I am mocking all the people who went ballistic over one word from a one non-authoritative document the Bishops haven’t even approved and it looks like they won’t approve of without major changes. As Akin points out many documents where produced and went threw revisions during Trent. But it was likely more peaceful even given the times because nobody had i-Phones.

>Which is it? These are not compatible statements.

I am the interpreter of my words. If I am not clear then I just clarified.

>No, he's not. Nor am I obligated to pretend he's something other than Pope Leo X if that's what he turns out to be.

Do you mean Leo X’s failure to implement the reforms of Lateran V or the rumor he was gay?

Crude said...

This time they put a warning label on it ahead of time unlike the Scalfari interview so I don’t know what to tell you?

How's that supposed to encourage me? How about they stop dancing to the progressive media's tune - if that's, in fact, what they wish to avoid?

They are the same people who put a man on the cover of the Advocate who called efforts to promote gay marriage and gay adoption the work of the Devil.

They are also the same people who have historically enthusiastically supported people who in the past have given appearances of opposing their aims, confident that they had their secret support.

I think it is a little presumptuous to project emotional states on the Cardinals but they are clearly concerned, expressing those concerns and doing their jobs.

Presumptuous? They damn well said they're sick of what's going on! They engaged in open revolt over how this synod is being run, in full view of the Pope.

He is also showing us how this is not a new battle but the same one waged for 2000 years. Also he is telling people to act like layman not substitute clergy. He is telling people not to panic. Yet all I see from the Reactionaries is panic.

What's the difference between panic and concern? And who's NOT panicking? That would be people who are hoping for the day when a female bishop who believes Jesus 'was a nice teacher' presides over a gay wedding.

Those "reactionaries" are faithful catholics too. They are concerned. They are shit all over in every corner of the culture, and they're now seeing what looks like corruption in their church. Pardon me if I'm sympathetic to them.

I am mocking all the people who went ballistic over one word from a one non-authoritative document the Bishops haven’t even approved and it looks like they won’t approve of without major changes.

It wasn't one word. It was more than that.

How about you mock the clergy who released that document, because if they did so and did NOT want to, with a wink and a nudge, communicate what they did to the world, they're clearly tremendously incompetent.

Do you mean Leo X’s failure to implement the reforms of Lateran V or the rumor he was gay?

I mean his general failure as a Pope and corruption in general. We've had shitty popes. Popes they remained. Shitty ones.

Let's see the Pope show some 'mercy' and 'compassion' to the orthodox. And no, I don't mean showing up in person and explaining why he's discouraging the promotion of the tridentine mass.

BenYachov said...

@Crude



>How's that supposed to encourage me? How about they stop dancing to the progressive media's tune - if that's, in fact, what they wish to avoid?

Do you have any ideas how to do this? I am all ears. Apart from the Pope crowning the ArchDuke Ferdinand Holy Roman Emperor & having him raise an army to suppress the media I got nothing. Or just lock down the Synod like they do a Concave & let the Bishops fight it out among themselves.

>They are also the same people who have historically enthusiastically supported people who in the past have given appearances of opposing their aims, confident that they had their secret support.

What does this have to do with the Vatican & I am personally adverse to thinking of the Church in political categories? For me politics is something that belongs either in Parliament or a whorehouse but I repeat myself.:-)

>Presumptuous? They damn well said they're sick of what's going on! They engaged in open revolt over how this synod is being run, in full view of the Pope.

In short they are acting no different then they did at Trent, Vatican I, Nicea etc….They are doing their job but their emotional state I won’t presume to guess it.

If you must then let us agree to disagree. Irresistible force vs un-movable object. Aka Crude & Benyachov when they don’t agree.

Ok but I could see your point & maybe you can see mine? Fair?

>What's the difference between panic and concern?

Jimmy Akin is showing concern and giving practical advice on what to do. Some others are giving their conspiracy theories based on dubious interpretations of equally dubious obscure private revelation that we are entering a dark time with a subversive dark church in the background. & I think that is panic. One of many examples.

>And who's NOT panicking? That would be people who are hoping for the day when a female bishop who believes Jesus 'was a nice teacher' presides over a gay wedding.

Which is ironic! They are so positive & confident and have such Faith about the eventual vindication of a view point that is false and will never be vindicated by God yet many orthodox show less confidence in the vindication of the Truth? Libs show more faith in their lie then we show for the Truth. There is something wrong with that.

We deserve to be confident not them.

>Those "reactionaries" are faithful catholics too. They are concerned. They are shit all over in every corner of the culture, and they're now seeing what looks like corruption in their church. Pardon me if I'm sympathetic to them.

We are both likely thinking of different things in regards to the term “reactionaries”.

BenYachov said...

>How about you mock the clergy who released that document, because if they did so and did NOT want to, with a wink and a nudge, communicate what they did to the world, they're clearly tremendously incompetent.

I can’t since my conscience tells me that might violate 1 tim 5:1. “Rebuke not an Elder”. The actual word is Presbyter which is the ancient term for Priest.

Rebuke not a Priest but exhort him as a Father in the archaic Catholic Translations. As St John Paul II said you can’t do evil so that good might come from it.
Maybe it’s my military mentality but I was trained not to undermine the command but go threw the proper channels of I had concerns or criticisms.

>I mean [Leo X’s] general failure as a Pope and corruption in general. We've had shitty popes. Popes they remained. Shitty ones.

Well even St John Paul II was “shitty” in the way he didn’t deal with the sex abuse crisis which the Church still gets grief for. But Benedict did a lot behind the scenes & Francis has started arresting bishops. But back to St JP2 he wasn’t negligent because of malice or unconcern but he succeeded in other ways as Pope. I am willing to do the autopsy of a past Pope. But I refuse to undermine a reigning one. I can’t do otherwise. Do what you must but that is where I live.

>Let's see the Pope show some 'mercy' and 'compassion' to the orthodox. And no, I don't mean showing up in person and explaining why he's discouraging the promotion of the tridentine mass.

I don’t buy the propaganda that he is opposed to the St Pius V Mass. I have known too many sane traditionalist who have told me they blame the extremists for giving them a bad reputation with Bishops they have tried to approach. Pete Vree comes to mind. You can have a local FSSP Mass & that is lovely but in my experience a faction always shows up that is in their heart and soul SSPX. Believing in all sorts of heresy like the invalidity of the Paul VI(a concept that contradicts Trent), Feeneyitism, conspiracy theory etc…
Now I will grant you too many bishops seem enthusiastic to crush right leaning heresy and turn a blind eye to left leaning. But that just means they should treat both equally. Also they shouldn’t punish faithful Trads for the actions of Radtrads. But maybe Trads should police their own more?
It’s messy.

Anyway I want to see you side Crude & I think I do. I am not here to “win” an argument with you. I hope you see mine.

Cheers.

BenYachov said...

PS

Briefly I remember the last time you and I disagreed.

I don't want a repeat of that. Understand when I argue I take a contrary position & I defend my view.

I am BenYachov that is what I do. it's not personal.

Feel free to tell me what you think I should understand then tell me if you can see where I am coming from too.

It easier since I see you as a friend.

Some people I disagree with are my friends and some I can't stand.

Of course others I agree with on certain points & some are not my friends and in other circumstances I can't stand them *cough* Mark Shea *cough*. :-)

But there you have it.

Crude said...

Do you have any ideas how to do this? I am all ears.

Apparently Cardinal Burke, Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II managed to pull this off. Why can't Francis?

Ok but I could see your point & maybe you can see mine? Fair?

What point should I see? I've been arguing against people freaking out too much about Francis, but as I made clear - I have a limit.

Jimmy Akin is showing concern and giving practical advice on what to do. Some others are giving their conspiracy theories based on dubious interpretations of equally dubious obscure private revelation that we are entering a dark time with a subversive dark church in the background. & I think that is panic.

Tell me how Cardinal Kasper comes across looking like anything but a creep here.

Which is ironic! They are so positive & confident and have such Faith about the eventual vindication of a view point that is false and will never be vindicated by God yet many orthodox show less confidence in the vindication of the Truth?

It's not God who I'm concerned about here. Nor, I strongly suspect, are they - but in a different way.

I can’t since my conscience tells me that might violate 1 tim 5:1. “Rebuke not an Elder”. The actual word is Presbyter which is the ancient term for Priest.

I recall Paul rebuked Peter.

Well even St John Paul II was “shitty” in the way he didn’t deal with the sex abuse crisis which the Church still gets grief for.

It was hardly PJP2's to deal with in the sense you mean.

Now I will grant you too many bishops seem enthusiastic to crush right leaning heresy and turn a blind eye to left leaning. But that just means they should treat both equally. Also they shouldn’t punish faithful Trads for the actions of Radtrads. But maybe Trads should police their own more?

When the Pope's holding a synod that seems aimed at making 'left leaning heresy' the de facto law of the land, it's hard to give much of a shit about the fact that some guys think the Novus Ordo sucks.

Anyway I want to see you side Crude & I think I do. I am not here to “win” an argument with you. I hope you see mine.

I am explaining my position, if forcefully. I am not out to 'win'. But I am unconvinced by your points. I think the conservatives have a just grievance, and it's high time for the Pope - and the Church elite - to accept that, and act accordingly.

The Deuce said...

"It was a mistranslation" has become the Vatican's equivalent of the Obama administration's "I just read about it in the news the same time you all did."

Anyhow, it's my understanding of Catholic theology that the respect owed to the current Pope is still owed just as much to his predecessors through whom he derives his authority, and even moreso to Christ, from whom Christian doctrine on marriage comes, and who delegated the authority to Peter in the first place. Seems that if the Pope is trying to use that authority to undermine the very source of that authority (and thus his own authority), or is even just standing by while it's undermined, the faithful are obligated to say something about it.

BenYachov said...

@Crude

Briefly

>Apparently Cardinal Burke, Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II managed to pull this off. Why can't Francis?

Apparently not because here we are.

>What point should I see? I've been arguing against people freaking out too much about Francis, but as I made clear - I have a limit.

So we kind of agree here that is good.

>Tell me how Cardinal Kasper comes across looking like anything but a creep here.

Enough Rope+ Give=Kasper hangs self. BenYachov=no tear shed

>It's not God who I'm concerned about here. Nor, I strongly suspect, are they - but in a different way.

Some of them & some not.

>I recall Paul rebuked Peter.

He is a fellow Presbyter not a layman.

>It was hardly PJP2's to deal with in the sense you mean.

Tell that to Rod Dreher who left the Church over it & accused StJP2 of not caring with the same force people are accusing Francis of being a Liberal.

>When the Pope's holding a synod that seems aimed at making 'left leaning heresy' the de facto law of the land, it's hard to give much of a shit about the fact that some guys think the Novus Ordo sucks.

Good call! Whatever agreements or disagreement we may have I like this in that it shows you have your priorities straight.


>I am explaining my position, if forcefully. I am not out to 'win'. But I am unconvinced by your points. I think the conservatives have a just grievance, and it's high time for the Pope - and the Church elite - to accept that, and act accordingly.

Then we shall leave it at that.

Cheers.

Crude said...

Apparently not because here we are.

An alternative: Francis could if he wanted to. Perhaps he doesn't.

Enough Rope+ Give=Kasper hangs self. BenYachov=no tear shed

Let's see if the Pope considers Kasper to have hung himself.

He is a fellow Presbyter not a layman.

This is a Pope and a Cardinal who have, respectively, accepted admonition from atheists and LGB activists. They can accept it from us as well.

Tell that to Rod Dreher who left the Church over it & accused StJP2 of not caring with the same force people are accusing Francis of being a Liberal.

Are you really suggesting that having the 'same force' used in completely different complaints against completely different people, with completely different reactions urged, somehow makes them linked?