Category: Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict’s trip to the United States is obviously a focus of attention right now.

I’d like to CHT the reader who e-mailed a link to THIS STORY by Peggy Noonan.

In it, she reflects on the personal styles of JP2 and B16, and offers a number of insights, among them this:

A Vatican reporter last week said John Paul was the perfect pope for the television age, "a man of images." Think of the pictures of him storm-tossed, tempest-tossed, standing somewhere and leaning into a heavy wind, his robes whipping behind him, holding on to his crosier, the staff bearing the image of a crucified Christ, with both hands, for dear life, as if consciously giving Christians a picture of what it is to be alive.

Benedict, the reporter noted, is the perfect pope for the Internet age. He is a man of the word. You download the text of what he said, print it, ponder it.

Actually, I don’t print it. I have my text-to-speech engine read it to me and then ponder it, but I get the idea.

Now if the Holy See would only get the perfect web site for the Internet age.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as appreciative of B16 as Mrs. Noonan.

Stephen Prothero, the Chair of the Department of Religion for Jesuit-run Boston College, for example, ISN’T:

Young American Catholics treated John Paul II like a rock star. Yes, he was socially and theologically conservative, but at least they could relate to the guy with the "Popemobile" and the smile and the energy to travel to some 130 countries during his 26 years at the Holy See. But can they relate to Benedict XVI? And can he relate to them? What can a pope who is an academic theologian first and foremost offer young Americans, save for dogmas they don’t believe in and rituals they do not understand? Is he coming to scold us? Or to hug us?

We are about to find out.

Actually, someone should scold Stephen Prothero, but it should be someone other than B16.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there’s LOTS OF COVERAGE OF THE PAPAL VISIT FROM EWTN.

It’s really cool being able to put the pope directly on your blog, so here goes: B16 as guest blogger.

Here is a video from Pope Benedict introducing his forthcoming visit to the United States.

What’s ultra cool about this, to me anyway, is that I’m hearing the pope speaking in English. I’ve read I don’t know how many documents he’s written, but there is nothing like hearing someone speaking your native language to give you a sense of them on a personal level (even if they are reading from a prepared text, as is the case here).

MORE HERE.

I read Spe Salvi the first day it came out, and I’m still digesting it. It’s longer by more than 3,000 words than its predecessor, Deus Caritas Est and takes more than two hours to read (unless you’re speed reading, of course).

I’ll try to blog some about its contents, and the first thing I thought I’d note is something that lept out at me when I was making my way through it the very first time.

You see, I’m not a big fan of the New American Bible. It’s a squishy, lame, tin-eared translation. Even the people who worked on the translation (like Raymond Brown) complained about what the stylistic editors did to their work (though that applies more to the original edition than the current one).

The NAB also happens to be approved by the U.S. bishops for use in liturgy, and so occasionally I get someone who is more-bishopier-than-thou looking down his nose at me for finding fault with the translation, as if the U.S. bishops personally translated the document–as a body–under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Instead of approving as a conference the work of a set of interlocking committees of iconoclastic translators who were determined to desacralize the language of Scripture. Under those circumstances, an individual bishop had virtually no chance of getting substantive changes made in the document, especially in the heady atmosphere of the early 1970s, when the first edition came out.)

Well, in Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict is very diplomatic about it–in keeping with his position as pope–but he finds fault with a translation approved by the conference of bishops of his homeland, Germany.

Discussing, Hebrews, 11:1, he writes:

To Luther, who was not particularly fond of
the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of “substance”, in the context of
his view of faith, meant nothing. For this reason he understood the term
hypostasis/substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within
us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude, and
so, naturally, he also had to understand the term argumentum as a
disposition of the subject. In the twentieth century this interpretation became
prevalent—at least in Germany—in Catholic exegesis too, so that the ecumenical
translation into German of the New Testament, approved by the Bishops, reads as
follows: Glaube aber ist: Feststehen in dem, was man erhofft, Überzeugtsein
von dem, was man nicht sieht (faith is: standing firm in what one hopes,
being convinced of what one does not see). This in itself is not incorrect, but
it is not the meaning of the text, because the Greek term used (elenchos)
does not have the subjective sense of “conviction” but the objective sense of
“proof”. Rightly, therefore, recent Protestant exegesis has arrived at a
different interpretation: “Yet there can be no question but that this classical
Protestant understanding is untenable.”⁵ Faith is not merely a
personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent: it
gives us something. It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting
for, and this present reality constitutes for us a “proof” of the things that
are still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no
longer simply a “not yet”. The fact that this future exists changes the present;
the present is touched by the future reality, and thus the things of the future
spill over into those of the present and those of the present into those of the
future (Spe Salvi 7).

Ultimately, it’s about what translation best captures what’s in the original, not who produced it or who approved it.

This is not to discount the importance of episcopal approval of Scripture translations. I’m not in the least suggesting we do away with that. But it is to note that even when we have episcopal approval of a translation, that doesn’t mean that the translation is infallible or the best one that could have been produced.

HERE’S THE LINK.

SOME ANALYSIS FROM JOHN ALLEN.

MORE.

There’s been a rumor for some time that B16 has been working on a new encyclical on social issues . . . perhaps globalization.

However the Holy See has confirmed that a new and different encyclical will be signed–and apparently released–this Friday.

The new encyclical–Spe Salvi ("Saved by Hope" or "Saved in Hope"; from St. Paul’s phrase)–is a theological meditation on hope and a companion to B16’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, which was a meditation on love.

This signals that the pontiff means to do an encyclical on each of the theological virtues, so in a year or two we should look for one on the virtue of faith to complete the trilogy.

I especially look forward to what the Pope will have to say in the third one!

It is also notable that he is doing the theological virtues in the reverse order that they are normally given in. This may be a deliberate strategy on his part to play against the stereotype of him as a stern doctrinal enforcer.

What I’m particularly struck by, though, is the claim that the new encyclical will be signed and released the same day. To my mind, that’s the way it ought to be, though so often the Holy See will sign something and then not release it for a long time. I haven’t followed lately how often they’ve been doing that, but if there’s a move to sign and release the same day, that’s a good thing.

A few years ago on a Catholic Answers cruise we were joined by Archbishop John P. Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

He was a riot!

The guy has a very open demeanor and a terrific sense of humor. He talks always had the attendees in stitches.

As the head of a relatively minor dicastery in Rome, the Archbishop described himself atone point as "the Rodney Dangerfield of the Vatican," calling to mind the late commedian’s signature complaint "No respect! No respect!"

But now that’s changed.

B16 has just announced that Archbishop Foley will soon become Cardinal Foley.

John Allen comments:

Benedict XVI also showed his appreciation for loyalty today by at long last naming Archbishop John Foley to the College of Cardinals. Foley served as the President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications since 1984 until he resigned in June, and during those 23 years, Foley watched eight consistories in which 214 other men became cardinals. Each time he endured speculation about why he had not been inducted into the college with good humor and without complaint. One of the most universally popular figures in the Vatican, it’s not difficult to anticipate that his line of well-wishers during the receptions following the Nov. 24 consistory should be especially long.

MORE ON JOHN FOLEY.

LIST OF ALL THE NEW CARDINALS.

ANALYSIS OF THE PICKS.

MORE ANALYSIS.

It’s been predicted for some time that B16 would remove Marini from his office as the papal master of ceremonies.

And now he has.

His replacement is . . . Marini!

That is, Archbishop Piero Marini is being replaced by Fr. Guido Marini.

Same last name. Two different guys.

In case you haven’t been aware of who Piero Marini is or what the papal master of ceremonies is, basically he (Piero Marini) is the guy who, as master of ceremonies, plans the pope’s celebration of the liturgy.

Want to know why there were Aztec dancers gyrating all over the place at the canonization of Juan Diego?

Piero Marini.

Want to know why John Paul II’s vestments for the Third Millennium celebration looked like a costume from Star Trek Voyager?

Piero Marini.

Want to know why liturgical law was disregarded regularly at John Paul II’s major celebrations of the liturgy?

Piero Marini.

I don’t know why JP2 kept him around, particularly as he started tightening up on liturgical abuses through the latter part of his reign.

I mean, if you’re trying to tighten up the celebration of the liturgy for Catholics all over the world, not using one’s authority as pope to authorize deviations from the norms at your own liturgies would seem to be a good first step.

Otherwise, it’s easy for liturgical dissidents the world over to say, "Well, the pope had this (e.g., dancing) at his own Mass, so it’s obviously okay for us to have it, too."

But for whatever reason, Pope John Paul decided to retain the services of Piero Marini.

Once B16 was elected, it was widely expected that he would replace Marini, though not immediately lest it look like a slap.

Some have thought that the case of Benedict’s tie-dyed vestments in Austria (more on those later) might have precipitated the replacement.

So who’s the new Marini?

EXCERPT:

The new Marini, according to Italian observers, does not bring a sharply defined ideological profile into his new position. Though he served as the master of ceremonies in the Genoa archdiocese for both Cardinals Dionigi Tettamanzi and Tarcisio Bertone (today the Vatican’s Secretary of State), Guido Marini, 46, has an academic background in canon law and spirituality rather than liturgy.

GET THE STORY.

UNBELIEVABLE. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.

Can’t even get the facts straight.

How do I contact someone at CNN to see about writing a response editorial?

GET THE STORY.

Analysis later.

Pope Benedict XVI has released the long-awaited document granting permission for the older form of Mass, which was in general use in Catholic churches before the Second Vatican Council.

This move will prove controversial in some quarters, and the pope refers to the controvery that has already been generated in a letter he issued that accompanies the document.

The pope comments:

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion.  There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

Here are links to the document itself (the "motu proprio"–a document issued by the pope’s "own initiative"), the accompanying letter from the pope, and analysis by others.

TEXT OF THE MOTU PROPRIO. (AND IN LATIN.)

TEXT OF THE ACCOMPANYING LETTER.

ANALYSIS.

MORE ANALYSIS.

YET MORE ANALYSIS!

UPDATE: AND STILL YET MORE ANALYSIS (THIS TIME FROM FR. Z–CHT TO THE READER WHO COMMENTED).

HOW THE CONTROVERSY MAY PLAY OUT.