If At First You Don’t Succeed…

Being the inveterate royal-watcher I am, when I stumbled across a recap of Prince Charles’ wedding to Mrs. Andrew Parker Bowles on "BBC America" I watched … with clenched teeth and appropriately timed snorts of disbelief. Apparently even CNN couldn’t help but notice the supreme irony of the occasion:

"A solemn ceremony has blessed the wedding of the heir to the British throne Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall, at which the couple each pledged to be faithful to each other.

[…]

"The blessing ceremony, which had the feel of a wedding and was aired across the globe, conjured memories of the 1981 day when millions of television viewers watched Prince Charles marry Lady Diana Spencer at St. Paul’s Cathedral in what has become part of royal lore as a ‘fairy-tale’ wedding. "That storybook Charles-Diana wedding ceremony, which captivated the world, contrasted in sad irony with what followed — a tempestuous marriage and separation of Charles and the now-late Diana, Princess of Wales, that shocked and appalled all of England and royal-watchers everywhere.

[…]

"The [Anglican] archbishop’s [Rowan Williams of Canterbury] talk of ‘love and faithfulness’ contrasted with the adultery the pair, as well as the late Diana herself, displayed over the years.

"In the wedding blessing, the couple recited a line of repentance from the Book of Common Prayer, the inclusion of which is seen as an acknowledgment of their prior adultery."

Or a continuing state of adultery, unless the new Duchess of Cornwall has obtained an annulment of her first marriage to the Roman Catholic Andrew Parker Bowles.  (If she has, then this marriage to Prince Charles means that there would be no ongoing state of adultery and the marriage would be presumably sacramental.)

GET THE STORY.

The Oath

You may also be wondering what the oath is that the folks involved in the conclave have to swear.

Here ’tis:

I, N.N., promise and swear that, unless I should receive a special faculty given expressly by the newly-elected Pontiff or by his successors, I will observe absolute and perpetual secrecy with all who are not part of the College of Cardinal electors concerning all matters directly or indirectly related to the ballots cast and their scrutiny for the election of the Supreme Pontiff.

I likewise promise and swear to refrain from using any audio or video equipment capable of recording anything which takes place during the period of the election within Vatican City, and in particular anything which in any way, directly or indirectly, is related to the process of the election itself. I declare that I take this oath fully aware that an infraction thereof will make me subject to the spiritual and canonical penalties which the future Supreme Pontiff will see fit to adopt, in accordance with Canon 1399 of the Code of Canon Law.

So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand [UDG 48].

It seems to me that this oath leaves something to be desired in two respects:

  1. It contains no provision against the use or planting of electronic equiptment that may transmit or allow the monitoring of things going on in the conclave. (Bugs are not recording devices, typically, as far as I know.)
  2. At least some of the spiritual and canonical penalties ought to be determined up front and included in the oath. At least some of them ought to be automatic (latae sententiae) lest folks get the idea that they only run the risk of being slapped with them if they get caught.

Who's Involved?

A lot of folks have been wondering who precisely is involved in the upcoming conclave–apart from the cardinal electors themselves, that is.

Well, a good test of that is who will be required to swear the oath of secrecy concerning the conclave. The Vatican Information Service recently released a list of the folks who’ll be required to do that. Here ’tis:

  • The Secretary of the College of Cardinals.
  • The master of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.
  • The masters of pontifical ceremonies.
  • The religious who supervise the pontifical sacristy.
  • The ecclesiastic chosen by the cardinal dean to help him in his duties.
  • The religious charged with hearing confessions in the various languages.
  • Doctors and nurses.
  • The personnel for preparing meals and cleaning.
  • Technical service personnel (Universi Dominici gregis, paras. 5 and 51).
  • Personnel responsible for transporting the cardinal electors from the ‘Domus Sanctae Marthae’ to the Apostolic Palace.
  • Elevator attendants at the Apostolic Palace.
  • Priests admitted as assistants to some of the Cardinals.

So there you have it! Those are the folks who’ll be involved!

Who’s Involved?

A lot of folks have been wondering who precisely is involved in the upcoming conclave–apart from the cardinal electors themselves, that is.

Well, a good test of that is who will be required to swear the oath of secrecy concerning the conclave. The Vatican Information Service recently released a list of the folks who’ll be required to do that. Here ’tis:

  • The Secretary of the College of Cardinals.
  • The master of the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.
  • The masters of pontifical ceremonies.
  • The religious who supervise the pontifical sacristy.
  • The ecclesiastic chosen by the cardinal dean to help him in his duties.
  • The religious charged with hearing confessions in the various languages.
  • Doctors and nurses.
  • The personnel for preparing meals and cleaning.
  • Technical service personnel (Universi Dominici gregis, paras. 5 and 51).
  • Personnel responsible for transporting the cardinal electors from the ‘Domus Sanctae Marthae’ to the Apostolic Palace.
  • Elevator attendants at the Apostolic Palace.
  • Priests admitted as assistants to some of the Cardinals.

So there you have it! Those are the folks who’ll be involved!

Clothes Make The Man?

PapalvestmentsAfter the new pope is elected among the first things they will do (not the first thing) is get him suited up in papal clothing and then usher him out on the balcony of the Vatican Basilica so he can appear to the waiting people and give the apostolic blessing Urbi et Orbi.

I’ve been wondering: How do they know what size clothes to use for the new pope?

Do that have a bulky, one-size-fits all set of clothes?

Do they call in an emergency tailor?

Do they have several sizes standing by?

Turns out it’s the latter.

The tailor who makes the clothes (Filippo Gammarelli) delivers a small, medium, and large set before the conclave begins.

GET THE STORY.

"A Pillar And Foundation"?

A reader writes:

I know my basic theology behind why the Roman Catholic Church does not profess Sola Scriptura. My favorite defense is "the pillar and foundation of truth" of 1 Timothy 3:15.

Today, in talking with some reformed friends, they told me my translation was wrong.

They are referring from the ESV which is reputably very strong on its greek translation – just what I hear, I dunno one way or the other, I’m not a language scholar.

Anyways, according to the ESV, the verse is "A pillar and foundation of truth".

Well the non-definitiveness there certainly ruins the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth. Now, one of the fellows I’m talking to attends Westminster, and he’ll be asking his greek prof about the discrepany between the Greek, the ESV, and all other translations we’ve been looking at.

The concept of definiteness can be tricky across languages–or even within a language. For purposes of comparison, Latin has no definite articles, meaning that you have to determine definiteness by context or simply guess whether it’s there or not.

Greek (the language we are here concerned with) has a definite article ("the") but not indefinite article ("a, an"). The presence of a definite article in Greek makes it somewhat easier to determine definiteness, but it’s not always easy because New Testament Greek doesn’t use the presence (or absence) of the definite article precisely the way we do in English. Sometimes they use it when we wouldn’t (e.g., saying "And the Jesus answered and said . . . "), and sometimes they omit it even though English would require it.

In this case there is no definite article before the phrase "pillar and foundation." The default translation of this phrse would thus either omit any article or supply the indefinite article ("a pillar and founation").

That’s only what one would think looking at the phrase itself, though. Phrases do not exist in isolation but need to be looked at in the overall context of the sentence and the passage in which they occur. The context of the phrase may contain clues about whether the phrase is really definite or indefinite.

Here is how the Englis Standard Version (ESV) translates 1 Timothy 3:15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

Let’s break this up into clauses:

a) I hope to come to you soon,

b) but I am writing these things to you

c) so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,

d) which is the church of the living God,

e) [which is] a pillar and buttress of truth.

The sentence has two independent clauses, (a) and (b). The first states what Paul hopes to do in the future and the second states what he is doing now.

Clause (b) is then progressively explained by a series of subordinate clauses, (c), (d), and (e).

The purposes of why Paul is doing (b) is explained by (c), which ends with the phrase "household of God." This phrase is then clarified further by (d) and (e).

Now here’s the thing: While it’s true that the phrase "pillar and buttress of truth" in clause (e) does not have a definite article, neither do the phrases "church of the living God" in clause (d) or the prhase "household of God" in clause (c).

This is important because, as we noted, context may indicate definiteness or indefiniteness. One cannot rely exclusively on the presence or absence of the definite article.

A common-sense take on the relationship of these clauses suggests that they all share the same definiteness or indefiniteness. Clauses (d) and (e) seem to just clarify the expression "household of God" at the end of (c). If the noun phrases in (c) and (d) are definite then one would naturally take the noun phrase in (e) as definite as well.

Thus it is inconsistent for the ESV to suddenly go indefinite in clause (e). To translate with consistency on this point, one would either render the verse:

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in A household of God, which is A church of the living God, A pillar and buttress of truth.

or

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in THE household of God, which is THE church of the living God, THE pillar and buttress of truth.

The latter rendering seems more likely to me–among other reasons because the phrase "household of God" is non-standard. It’s not the kind of thing descriptor of the Church that early Christians normally used. They used it sometimes, to be sure, but not in the rote manner that they used the term "church." As a result, it seems less likely to me that Paul would lead off by using a non-standard term in an indefinite manner ("a household of God") than that he would use it in a definite manner.

Most translations, including the ESV, seem to agree with me, at least as far as taking the phrase as definite. Consistency would then urge one to render the parallel noun phrases in clauses (d) and (e) as definite as well. Most translations also seem to do that, though the ESV (for some reason) does not.

There can be reasons not to translate consistently, but you need a reason not to do so. I don’t see any reason in the grammar to suddenly shift from being definite to indefinite in how one is rendering this string of noun phrases. It could be a theological reason why the ESV translators do it (e.g., because they don’t want to make such a strong claim about the Church), but that’s simply speculation on my point. They don’t say (to my knowledge) why they switched to indefinite, so we can only guess.

In the absence of a clear-cut reason for the shift, though, it still seems to me that the most natural to take the phrase as definite.

Even if that were not the case, though, it wouldn’t "ruin the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth." The Church’s claim to having the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on this verse. The Church has that authority, but it does not need this verse to prove it. One may argue back and forth about the degree to which this truth is reflected in this or any other verse, but it is not dependent on this verse.

Further, whether one takes the final phrase definitely or indefinitely, the verse certainly makes a very strong statement about the Church’s role in relationship to the truth. You don’t need the article to tell you that.

“A Pillar And Foundation”?

A reader writes:

I know my basic theology behind why the Roman Catholic Church does not profess Sola Scriptura. My favorite defense is "the pillar and foundation of truth" of 1 Timothy 3:15.

Today, in talking with some reformed friends, they told me my translation was wrong.

They are referring from the ESV which is reputably very strong on its greek translation – just what I hear, I dunno one way or the other, I’m not a language scholar.

Anyways, according to the ESV, the verse is "A pillar and foundation of truth".

Well the non-definitiveness there certainly ruins the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth. Now, one of the fellows I’m talking to attends Westminster, and he’ll be asking his greek prof about the discrepany between the Greek, the ESV, and all other translations we’ve been looking at.

The concept of definiteness can be tricky across languages–or even within a language. For purposes of comparison, Latin has no definite articles, meaning that you have to determine definiteness by context or simply guess whether it’s there or not.

Greek (the language we are here concerned with) has a definite article ("the") but not indefinite article ("a, an"). The presence of a definite article in Greek makes it somewhat easier to determine definiteness, but it’s not always easy because New Testament Greek doesn’t use the presence (or absence) of the definite article precisely the way we do in English. Sometimes they use it when we wouldn’t (e.g., saying "And the Jesus answered and said . . . "), and sometimes they omit it even though English would require it.

In this case there is no definite article before the phrase "pillar and foundation." The default translation of this phrse would thus either omit any article or supply the indefinite article ("a pillar and founation").

That’s only what one would think looking at the phrase itself, though. Phrases do not exist in isolation but need to be looked at in the overall context of the sentence and the passage in which they occur. The context of the phrase may contain clues about whether the phrase is really definite or indefinite.

Here is how the Englis Standard Version (ESV) translates 1 Timothy 3:15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

Let’s break this up into clauses:

a) I hope to come to you soon,

b) but I am writing these things to you

c) so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,

d) which is the church of the living God,

e) [which is] a pillar and buttress of truth.

The sentence has two independent clauses, (a) and (b). The first states what Paul hopes to do in the future and the second states what he is doing now.

Clause (b) is then progressively explained by a series of subordinate clauses, (c), (d), and (e).

The purposes of why Paul is doing (b) is explained by (c), which ends with the phrase "household of God." This phrase is then clarified further by (d) and (e).

Now here’s the thing: While it’s true that the phrase "pillar and buttress of truth" in clause (e) does not have a definite article, neither do the phrases "church of the living God" in clause (d) or the prhase "household of God" in clause (c).

This is important because, as we noted, context may indicate definiteness or indefiniteness. One cannot rely exclusively on the presence or absence of the definite article.

A common-sense take on the relationship of these clauses suggests that they all share the same definiteness or indefiniteness. Clauses (d) and (e) seem to just clarify the expression "household of God" at the end of (c). If the noun phrases in (c) and (d) are definite then one would naturally take the noun phrase in (e) as definite as well.

Thus it is inconsistent for the ESV to suddenly go indefinite in clause (e). To translate with consistency on this point, one would either render the verse:

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in A household of God, which is A church of the living God, A pillar and buttress of truth.

or

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in THE household of God, which is THE church of the living God, THE pillar and buttress of truth.

The latter rendering seems more likely to me–among other reasons because the phrase "household of God" is non-standard. It’s not the kind of thing descriptor of the Church that early Christians normally used. They used it sometimes, to be sure, but not in the rote manner that they used the term "church." As a result, it seems less likely to me that Paul would lead off by using a non-standard term in an indefinite manner ("a household of God") than that he would use it in a definite manner.

Most translations, including the ESV, seem to agree with me, at least as far as taking the phrase as definite. Consistency would then urge one to render the parallel noun phrases in clauses (d) and (e) as definite as well. Most translations also seem to do that, though the ESV (for some reason) does not.

There can be reasons not to translate consistently, but you need a reason not to do so. I don’t see any reason in the grammar to suddenly shift from being definite to indefinite in how one is rendering this string of noun phrases. It could be a theological reason why the ESV translators do it (e.g., because they don’t want to make such a strong claim about the Church), but that’s simply speculation on my point. They don’t say (to my knowledge) why they switched to indefinite, so we can only guess.

In the absence of a clear-cut reason for the shift, though, it still seems to me that the most natural to take the phrase as definite.

Even if that were not the case, though, it wouldn’t "ruin the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth." The Church’s claim to having the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on this verse. The Church has that authority, but it does not need this verse to prove it. One may argue back and forth about the degree to which this truth is reflected in this or any other verse, but it is not dependent on this verse.

Further, whether one takes the final phrase definitely or indefinitely, the verse certainly makes a very strong statement about the Church’s role in relationship to the truth. You don’t need the article to tell you that.

Pope Francis I?

John Allen, Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, lays out some of the reasons why an American pope would be unlikely:

"The fundamental impediment to an American papacy, however, is that the Vatican prizes its diplomatic independence far too seriously to elevate a superpower pope. The ‘Holy See’ is a sovereign entity that exchanges ambassadors with 174 nations and international organizations. Regardless of what that pope himself thought or felt, many people around the world would be tempted to see his decisions as somehow skewed by virtue of his citizenship. That would be especially ominous in the Middle East; it would be difficult for many people not to conclude that the pope’s policies are influenced by virtue of his nationality, no matter what he did. It would probably also be the end of Vatican attempts to improve things for Christian communities in Cuba, Vietnam, China, and across the Islamic world."

Interestingly enough, though, Allen does think that there might be an American who would be a good bet for the papabile list, if only he weren’t American:

"Having said that, is there an American cardinal who might be a formidable candidate if not for his nationality?

"The quick answer is ‘yes’: Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. George, who spent years in Rome as the superior of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, knows the inner world of the Vatican, and yet he is not a creature of it. He also speaks Italian with ease. He’s led a complex archdiocese for years, and by most accounts handled it rather well. One indication of the esteem in which he’s held is that he is widely sought after as a guest speaker at Vatican events, a distinction that few cardinals enjoy. George is by universal consensus the intellectual leader among the Americans, someone who devours two newspapers and a theological work before breakfast."

Well, even if Cardinal George is not tapped for Rome, it is good to know that Chicago is in good hands. By the way, Allen’s book Conclave is a helpful guide to papal elections.

GET THE STORY.