Vatican quietly alters transcript of Pope’s remarks on pro-choice pols

posted at 9:35 am on May 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

His apparent endorsement of excommunication kicked up way too much of a fuss, especially in Mexico, so they went back in after the fact and cut a few words to make it slightly more ambiguous. If the White House tried that, they’d be pilloried; if I tried that with one of my posts, I’d be pilloried. Just like Greg Mitchell was when one of his archived columns mysteriously received a few years-after-the-fact redactions.

Looks like Rudy’s off the hook.

Asked during an in-flight news conference Wednesday if legislators who legalized abortion in Mexico City should rightfully be considered excommunicated, Benedict replied, “Yes.”

“The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the code,” the pope said, referring to canon law.

On Thursday, the Vatican issued a slightly edited transcript that dropped the word “yes” in the pope’s response. Several other changes made his remarks seem a more general statement, rather than referring specifically to Mexican bishops who had said the politicians had excommunicated themselves.

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters that such edits are common. “Every time the pope speaks off the cuff, the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks,” he said.

Why? He wasn’t speaking infallibly at the time. Isn’t he entitled to change his mind, or at least say, “On second thought, I need to consider the issue further”? If they’re willing to walk back the cat on Limbo, why aren’t they willing to take a mulligan on this for the time being?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That really is strange.

Esthier on May 11, 2007 at 9:39 AM

Ay dios mio!

Tru2my2 on May 11, 2007 at 9:51 AM

It’s called revising and extending the record. Works great in Congress.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 11, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Thats not really a very good analogy…the teachings on Limbo have been in…uh…limbo for some time. They had to change as the notion of innocents not being able to go directly to heaven was at odds with the process for revering innocents and the idea that the killing of innocents represented a grievous sin. Changing the teaching of the Church on even such an ancillary issue as Limbo took upwards of a decade and Ratzinger presided over it while he was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Its really a jurisdictional issue. Even if they dropped the word, “yes,” it does not change Canon Law, which specifies that if a Catholic knowingly rebuffs Church teaching and makes that public (i.e. it is no longer simply a disagreement in his heart, but rather in his speech–wholeheartedly), their Bishop has the right to deem them excommunicated and deny them the Eucharist. Here, the Pope has the authority to deem them excommunicated, as anyone, but their home Bishop is the one that makes their call as to whether to deny them at the Communion rail. There is no question that these politicians excommunicated themselves by conveying that they had no respect for one of the only true foundational beliefs of the Catholic Church–the sanctity of human life–but whether the Latin Church chooses to acknowledge that is another matter.

Formal excommunication is a looooooong process–it was started for John Kerry in 2004 and has yet to reach even the conceptual stage in Rome.

E. M. on May 11, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Thats not really a very good analogy

My point is simply that to reverse course on Limbo, after however protracted a debate, is a bigger deal than the Pope simply saying he misspoke on a non-infallible matter. If they can do the former, they should be willing to do the latter.

Allahpundit on May 11, 2007 at 10:00 AM

The Pope is a politician.

BJ* on May 11, 2007 at 10:01 AM

I am not Catholic, but I still don’t understand why Rudy has a problem.

Wasn’t he rather clear on Laura Ingraham that his is not pro-abortion? As I hear it he recognizes that (1) he has the obligation to uphold the law (just like we HA readers want the “sanctuary” granting cities to do, even though it is contrary to their conscience) and the law currently says that this is legal AND (2) that our country allows people have the freedom to choose amongst legal options and it is not his place to quash that.

I, too, wish that this murderous act would be illegal…I just don’t understand the outrage at an elected official saying he will uphold the law that says it’s legal.

pavruch on May 11, 2007 at 10:11 AM

pavruch, he’s actually done more than that. He’s nearly come full circle to embrace the “murderous act” after it was learned that he donated money to support the act.

Esthier on May 11, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Hmmm, it’s almost as if people who claim to speak on behalf of God are TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT. Ahem.

Enrique on May 11, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Hmmm, it’s almost as if people who claim to speak on behalf of God are TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT. Ahem.

Enrique on May 11, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Oh my! You’re insulting Christians again. Is anyone here surprised even in the slightest?

Esthier on May 11, 2007 at 10:53 AM

The Vatican makes the Mafia look like the Boy Scouts. These are the guys who invented intrigue. Benny better step back in line.

honora on May 11, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Enrique on May 11, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Enrique, you’ve long since been coming off like a huge tool with these various comments of yours. Debate about the existence of God is fine, but at least try to work out some of your own issues in private.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 10:59 AM

No shock here. Follow the money.

Valiant on May 11, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Time to get rid of the papacy. The Muslims are going to do it sooner or later anyway.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Limbo was never a defined teaching, (NEVER, you got that???), so much as it was a “theological hypothesis.” (The Pope’s words.) Benedict’s desire to restore a long-needed clarity to the issue has provoked all manner of blathering in the mainstream press, most of whose proponents don’t really get the whole religion thing anyway. As to the Secretariat of State “clarifying” the Pope’s remarks, it doesn’t really change what he said, inasmuch as it is based in canon law, which in turn has its basis in divine law.

It’s time to get rid of Islam’s lust for world conquest. It won’t be the first time we’ve had to save Europe from their wrath.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Allah,

It’s very simple: those who perform abortions are automatically excommunicated. Those who have abortions done to them are automatically excommunicated. BUT, those who VOTE in favor of abortion policies are NOT automatically excommunicated. The Pope’s words were being reported as somehow changing that policy, and the correction was made to make it clear that merely voting in favor of policies does not automatically excommunicate a politician.

To be sure, voting for abortion is a serious thing, but the remedy is to deny that person communion. Excommunication may be appropriate if, after repeated attempts to teach a person, they manifestly persist in defiance and continuously cause public scandal by misrepresenting the church’s teachings or mocking their faith.

Perhaps the question is – SHOULD politicians be automatically excommunicated if they vote for abortion? Perhaps. But the Pope wasn’t going to change cannon law merely via interview. There is no rulemaking by speechmaking in the Catholic Church.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 11:21 AM

honora on May 11, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Another anti-Catholic bigot. Yawn.

PRCalDude: Enrique, you’ve long since been coming off like a huge tool with these various comments of yours… Time to get rid of the papacy.

Do you not see the irony of calling someone a tool and then telling Catholics they need to get rid of the papacy? Pot, kettle, black, etc.

No shock here. Follow the money.

Valiant on May 11, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Yeah, because the Church really gets a lot of money from abortion providers. (rolls eyes). What is it about Catholicism that makes certain people embrace their inner Truther?

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Debates about excommunication are fine, and you’re welcome to use the comments to have them, but I’m making a simple point here about the Vatican essentially lying to cover up an inconvenient statement by the Pope. That would seem to be a basic breach of one of the commandments, would it not? Not to mention ethical, per the examples I gave in the first paragraph of the post.

Allahpundit on May 11, 2007 at 11:25 AM

If he didn’t like what he said, why not just admittedly say, as Allah said, “I need to consider the issue further”? If he doesn’t like what he said, he makees it so he never said it? What is he a Democrat?

amerpundit on May 11, 2007 at 11:31 AM

I will have to agree somewha with Sydney and manwithblackhat on this one. The “gotcha!” attitude on things papal has gotten a little silly on this site as with others (I am just a bit more surprised that this site does it).
Limbo was never a Church teaching so there was no “walking back the cat” or any such thing about it.
THe fact that Lombardi says he edits everything may just get Lombardi himself in trouble. Pope Benedict, especially as Cardinal Ratzinger, was not one to like editing of his own remarks. In some cases the overt act of assisting in a procured abortion may result in an excommunication that is brought on by that person. They don’t need any proclamation. If the situation was that a country had a pro-life stance and then legislators turned over and allowed abortions, this may be an overt act of assisting in procuring abortions.
In America, unfortunately, abortion is legal through all nine months so any votes about abortion that would be deemed problematic are not as severe a change. Votes about funding and such are a bit too remote from the action itself.
Please pardon the spelling and other troubles in my posts I am fairly sick and have been for a while but I do read HA and ths issue made me try to post.
God bless.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 11:33 AM

“I’m making a simple point here about the Vatican essentially lying to cover up an inconvenient statement by the Pope. That would seem to be a basic breach of one of the commandments, would it not? Not to mention ethical, per the examples I gave in the first paragraph of the post.”

Allah, I can’t believe you’re falling for the MSM spin on this. First, whenever the media talks about religon (and especially Catholicism), their ability to report truthfully drops about 50%, as people who follow the Get Religion blog certainly know. Secondly, the Vatican is not lying, as it’s being very open about clarifying the teaching that the Pope said, so they’re not lying and there’s no “cover up” of an inconvenient statement. Excommunication for abortion happens all the time, to those who practice it or have it done, but VOTING on abortion is slightly different, and the media was confusing the two. Politicians who vote in favor of abortion are to be denied communion, and if they persist in public defiance of the Church, may be excommunicated (but that is very rare). Finally, as to the pilloring – they are being open about making sure the Teaching is correct, so what else do you want them to do? The Teaching is not like a blog, where error is to be left in to be studied. There’s a famous phrase, “Error has no rights.” The Teaching is clarified because the media was confusing it, and at the same time the Vatican is acknowledging that they’re doing that. What more do you want?

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Do you not see the irony of calling someone a tool and then telling Catholics they need to get rid of the papacy? Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Not really. The Pope claims infallibility, except when he’s speaking fallibly (?). How he jumps from one to another is beyond me. But at any rate, he pretty clearly made a mistake here. The only infallible rule of faith for the church is Scripture, not the pope. Being a man, he can’t claim any infallibility. What, exactly, is the Pope’s useful function?

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 11:46 AM

PRCalDud
The Pope speaks infallibly on matters of the Catholic faith and morals. He does not speak infallibly about math or geography.
As to the only rule of faith being the text, I hope you don’t believe in the Trinity because that is not in the text.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM

PRCalDud
The Pope speaks infallibly on matters of the Catholic faith and morals. He does not speak infallibly about math or geography.
As to the only rule of faith being the text, I hope you don’t believe in the Trinity because that is not in the text.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM

The only infallible rule of faith for the church is Scripture.

Are you telling me that I shouldn’t believe in the Trinity because the distinct persons of it are mentioned in several different places in Scripture, and I have to search them out to comprehend the doctrine of it?

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 12:22 PM

The Pope also does not claim infallibility as a man. He is no more infallible than you or I as a man, though as a renowned theologian (which he was long before he became Pope) he is certainly less prone to errors on matters of Catholic doctrine than you or I are.

The infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit, who protects the Pope from error in order to fulfill Christ’s promise to St. Peter.

It has been used precisely once since it was explicitly proclaimed in 1870; in 1950, by Pius XII, on the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Wikipedia’s summary is actually pretty good, and contains Scriptural references, which my Protestant friends will undoubtedly take exception to as being misread or misinterpreted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

There is no question the doctrine is controversial; it was even in 1870 within the Church. As a Catholic, I accept it; it makes sense to me even if it makes no sense to others.

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM

The infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit, who protects the Pope from error in order to fulfill Christ’s promise to St. Peter.

I think Origen’s sermon on that passage explains what Jesus was saying the best:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter, ‘etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it. ‘But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters that such edits are common. “Every time the pope speaks off the cuff, the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks,” he said.

It is Orwellian what they are doing, deciding what the pope did or did not say to change the historical record. No one should make excuses for this behavior. Give it up, Sydney Carton. We can defend Church doctrine, but this type of behavior and weak leadership is indefensible.

I am Catholic, and Pope Benedict definitely is going down as one of the weaker popes in the Church’s history: he is very unproductive (one encyclical in the past two years), he lets the liberals run the show (who is pope, he or the Secretariat of State?), and he is ineffective in countering Islam or secularism. He is proof that strong cardinals can make awful popes.

We need a pope outside of the postmodern European culture because Pope Benedict, though solidly orthodox himself, is a product of his post-WW II wimpy, pacifist nation’s culture.

januarius on May 11, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Here’s some exegesis on the Greek of that passage in Matthew:
http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

Jesus was speaking TO Peter ABOUT the rock. ‘That rock is Christ.’

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Secondly, the Vatican is not lying, as it’s being very open about clarifying the teaching that the Pope said, so they’re not lying and there’s no “cover up” of an inconvenient statement.

Yes, there most certainly is a cover up if they’re altering the facts about what the Pope actually said. If they want to append a clarification or mark it with an asterisk and then explain what he really meant, that’s fine. To actually change the text ex post is flatly unethical. And I have a very hard believing you’d have trouble seeing this if this post were about anyone else except the Pope.

Allahpundit on May 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM

I esteem much of Origen’s writing, as does the Pope.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50725

He was, however, held to be in significant error on a number of subjects by the Church’s Fifth Ecumencial Council, comprised of the successors of the Apostles, in the form of the respective bishops to whom he would also grant infallibility — which I find somewhat ironic. (To be fair to Origen, though, I do not think he is making the argument that James and John were infallible; but rather that Peter was not, but I couldn’t resist the jest. My apologies. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople

Of course, the church’s Fifth Ecumenical Council is not recognized by most mainline Protestant Denominations, who usually recognize the first four councils as being valid, but who prefer to stop there and don’t usually accept 5-21 in toto. I usually regard Origen with some suspicion because I do.

There are a number of cases where Christ singles out some of the apostles — for instance, only three of the twelve witness the Transfiguration. I regard his singling out of Peter as being significant here. Protestants do not.

Beyond that, I don’t think we’re going to agree.

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Allahpundit, personally I wonder what the Pope thinks about the ‘clean ups’. So far I like this guy, but it seams like those under him are acting like handlers.

- The Cat

MirCat on May 11, 2007 at 1:04 PM

This just in. Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus’ Press Secretary would like to issue a revision:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman misunderstood, such as his command to spread by the sword peacefully the faith he preached.”

Sheesh!

What is he a Democrat?

Sigh.

aengus on May 11, 2007 at 1:16 PM

So far I like this guy, but it seams like those under him are acting like handlers.

He should muzzle them, they’re behaving like a PR firm.

aengus on May 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM

The Pope may be infallible, but the Curia is eternal.

:-)

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Jesus was speaking TO Peter ABOUT the rock. ‘That rock is Christ.’

If the Catholic Church placed any of her claims on a single passage in Scripture, you MIGHT get away with such an imaginative turn of phrase. But she never has, and does not in this case.

Elsewhere in Scriptures after the departure of Church, Peter assumes a role of headship among the Twelve. Immediate generations understood the role of the his successors as Bishop of Rome, to have the same role that is understood as the papacy today.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Study your greek Manwithblackhat. All I’m sayin’

- The Cat

MirCat on May 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Here’s some exegesis on the Greek of that passage in Matthew:
http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html
Jesus was speaking TO Peter ABOUT the rock. ‘That rock is Christ.’

No actually, nowhere in Matthew is Christ referred to as the rock or the faith of Christ as the rock (Mt 7:24-25 is debateable but it is not used as a personal name)or anything relating to Christ as the rock. Peter who was Simon originally until Christ changed his name to Peter (Gk=Petros, Aramaic= Cephas, Hb= tsur) and calls Simon by the name Peter. Why on this one time would Christ change?
When you study the Scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian scriptures you see that when God changes your name, it important. Why was Simon changed to Peter? to be the foundation upon which Christ will build His Church on earth. This has been the understanding of Christians for Centuries before the Reformation and still is the majority of Christians today ( recall that Protestants make up a smaller portion of Christianity globally).

There is more to tell but I am tired and need rest. The link is interesting but it is a second rate review of a second rate book so it is of little use to the debate. It’s like having Kirk Camron debate against the high school atheist team.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Oh yeah, on Origen

“if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31)

He seemed to think Peter was something special.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 1:41 PM

More Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4).

I like that one.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Elsewhere in Scriptures after the departure of Church, Peter assumes a role of headship among the Twelve. Immediate generations understood the role of the his successors as Bishop of Rome, to have the same role that is understood as the papacy today.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Ok, how did the Bishop of Rome become the vicar of Christ here on Earth?

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Ok, how did the Bishop of Rome become the vicar of Christ here on Earth?

By virtue of his primacy among the Apostles. The term “vicar” simply means “stand-in” or “representative.”

That’s the short answer. The long one can be found somewhere in here.

Or you can take Michelle’s word for it, if that’ll help.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 2:03 PM

When you study the Scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian scriptures you see that when God changes your name, it important.

Great.

Revelation 2:7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.”

I guess all of the saints are then.

No actually, nowhere in Matthew is Christ referred to as the rock or the faith of Christ as the rock (Mt 7:24-25 is debateable but it is not used as a personal name)or anything relating to Christ as the rock.

Ok, but Paul has this to say about Christ:

1 Corinthians 10:4 “and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. ”

Oh yeah, on Origen

What about the sermon I quoted above? He seems pretty ambiguous there.

It’s like having Kirk Camron debate against the high school atheist team.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 1:36 PM

I prefer to let Scripture speak for itself.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Don’t forget to thank the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit under the leadership of the Pope, for the Scripture.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 2:15 PM

By virtue of his primacy among the Apostles

I’ll let Calvin speak for me here:

And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office and power Peter held among the apostles how he acted among them, how he was received by them, (Acts 15: 7.) Run over all these passages, and the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments but allowing them to decide; and when they have decided he follows and obeys. When he writes to pastors, he does not command authoritatively as a superior, but makes them his colleagues, and courteously advises as equals are wont to do, (1 Pet. 5: 1.) When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles, though the accusation is unfounded, he replies to it, and clears himself, (Acts 11: 3.) Being ordered by his colleagues to go with John into Samaria, he declines not, (Acts 8: 14.) The apostles, by sending him, declare that they by no means regard him as a superior, while he, by obeying and undertaking the embassy committed to him, confesses that he is associated with them, and has no authority over them.

But if none of these facts existed, the one Epistle to the Galatians would easily remove all doubt, there being almost two chapters in which the whole for which Paul contends is, that in regard to the honour of the apostleship, he is the equal of Peter; (Gal. 1: 18; 2: 8.) Hence he states, that he went to Peter, not to acknowledge subjection, but only to make their agreement in doctrine manifest to all; that Peter himself asked no acknowledgement of the kind, but gave him the right hand of fellowship, that they might be common labourers in the vineyard; that not less grace was bestowed on him among the Gentiles than on Peter among the Jews: in fine, that Peter, when he was not acting with strict fidelity, was rebuked by him, and submitted to the rebuke, (Gal. 2: 11-14.) All these things make it manifest, either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point, as I have said Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or John, who were colleagues not masters.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Little Green Footballs occasionally runs posts on the Protocals of the Daily Kos, in which it’s repeatedly shown how anti-semetic the Kossaks are. Perhaps he should do the same for Hot Air, only showing how anti-Catholic it is. The level of abuse directed at the Catholic Church on this blog is, frankly, astonishing. I don’t think Michelle Malkin would appreciate having her blog infested with anti-Catholic sterotypes or people who seem to assume the worst over everything associated with Catholics or the Pope. Every time this crap comes up, that bad behavior is reflected on her, and none of you do her any favors by parading your sterotypes, ignorance, and bigotry to the world here. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I have no problem educating other people on what Catholics believe or think, but to attribute evil, lying, a “cover up”, and other nefarious acts to the Pope in this situation – especially when it’s clear as day that they’re correcting a media spin on teaching – is outrageous.

This discussion now of course has gone off onto a tangent about infallability, which to any Catholic remotely familiar with the doctrine would know has no place in this context. I suppose that diversion was inevitible, since apparently some people think Papal infallability means that everything the Pope ever says always must be correct, which of course is a ridiculous sterotypical cartoon of Catholic doctrine. But it is unfortunate that people have to do it here.

PRCalDude, if you don’t understand Catholicism or its doctrines, please don’t promote your own idiotic Protestant sterotypes of it, and if you’re really interested in it, please read further before trying to ask questions about it. You’re leapfrogging from one issue to the next, and the only purpose to your questions seems to be an attempt to belittle Catholic faith or to somehow portray Catholics as improper Christians.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I should say, that I don’t think PRCalDude’s purpose seems to be an attempt to belittle Catholic faith. He is not “seeming” anything. He IS doing it, through his ridiculous long-quoted passages from Protestants who attack a cartoon sterotype of Catholicism with half-arguments and misinformation.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:25 PM

In that scene in Acts where Peter and Paul argue about a point of faith. If it were tuly a meeting of some guys hashing it out then the winner of the arguement will make the pronouncement with the approval of the loser. In that scene, one they come to a conclusion, it is Peter who makes the pronouncement.

Calvin forgot that even Paul does not think that the scriptures are all you need.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2Thes 2.15

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Sydney
Good point, I’m out. I forgot the original post and I am long overdue for rest.

God Bless.

DrM2B on May 11, 2007 at 2:30 PM

I’ll let Calvin speak for me here:

Yeah, I suppose you would. I let the Church that Christ founded on Earth speak for me, as opposed to some guy who ended up starting his own.

What we call “The New Testament” didn’t fall out of the sky in one piece in King James English. In fact, by the time the successors of the Apostles (that would be the bishops of the Church) finally sat down and agreed which were and were not proper to the canon of Scripture, the Gospel had had three centuries to get around to most of the known world of the time. Revelations, for example, very nearly did not make it, but for the intervention of St Augustine, among others. And even Martin Luther (a guy who didn’t mean to start his own church, but had one named after him anyway) referred to the Epistle of James as “a letter of straw.” In other words, it was crap.

Calvin forgot that even Paul does not think that the scriptures are all you need.

Neither did St John. Turn to the end of his Gospel to see for yourself.

(Note to Allahpundit: I didn’t expect to get into my UberPapist mode in a forum such as this. I’ll try not to make a habit of it. What with all the rabid MM fans here, I just assumed telling them to take her word for it would be enough. Alas….)

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Study your greek Manwithblackhat. All I’m sayin’

Those who do, would remind me that the Greek word for “Peter” and “rock” is the same — Cephas. (“kepha” in Aramaic.) Oh, and what DrM2B said.

So far I like this guy, but it seams like those under him are acting like handlers.

This has been a lament of Popes and priests for centuries. The ones who were the subject of Catherine of Siena’s letters to the exiled Pope in Avignon, were much worse. “Wolves and sellers of the Divine Grace,” she called them.

These guys today are pretty tame by comparison.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Look here, in Matthew 18, Jesus confers on all the disciples the same authority he gave to Peter in Matthew 16:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. I never said ‘Catholics are bad people because of thus and such.’ I was disputing the authority of the papacy.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters that such edits are common. “Every time the pope speaks off the cuff, the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks,” he said.

Being Pope has its prerogatives…

- why not us?
- why not the President? Maybe he’d like a banner “Mission Not Accomplished”
- why not those who were banned on HA?
- why not John Kerry? Maybe he’d like to say “Our Soldiers are smart”.
- why not Cynthia McKinney? Maybe she’d say “I love the Jews”
- why not Howard Dean? Maybe he’d like to undo his shout.
- why not Gov. Sebelius? Maybe she’d like to say “Nature caused the twister”
- why not Hillary? Maybe she’d declare “Our country is ripe for a President who can speak English well”
- why not Imus?
- why not Bill Clinton? I don’t even know what to say to this…

What would the Senate be without “macaca”? But then, we wouldn’t have Reaper Reid, and it would be half as boring.

First, the Earth is round after all, now Limbo…I can’t rely on the Vatican for steadiness any more.

Entelechy on May 11, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Yeah, I suppose you would. I let the Church that Christ founded on Earth speak for me, as opposed to some guy who ended up starting his own.

Calvin was quoting the relevant Scriptures that Catholics use to establish the authority of the Pope. Christ didn’t establish a papacy.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 2:59 PM

“I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. I never said ‘Catholics are bad people because of thus and such.’ I was disputing the authority of the papacy.”

Why can’t you merely accept the fact that Catholics have a Pope and leave it at that? If you don’t like it, you don’t have to be Catholic. Why do Protestants always have to attack Catholicism as if their lives depended on it? I don’t give a crap if you are a pre-millenalist, post-millenialist, or whatever believer. I don’t go around on Michelle Malkin’s blog and have arguments about THAT. Can’t you at least offer the same level of respect to Catholics here? As I said, if you’re really curious, there are other places to explore your questions. However, you don’t seek answers or understanding at all, but are merely bludgeoning people with sterotypical assaults. To what end?

Also, do you realize that Hot Air is increasingly gaining a reputation as an anti-Catholic blog to people who otherwise would like to comment here but feel unwelcome?

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Christ didn’t establish a papacy.

To be a Catholic, is to believe that he did.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Also, do you realize that Hot Air is increasingly gaining a reputation as an anti-Catholic blog to people who otherwise would like to comment here but feel unwelcome?

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 3:09 PM

That doesn’t follow. No one here is bashing catholics. AP puts posts up here all the time with Atheists saying something about Christianity and vice versa. Get over it.

Here the Pope said something and now there’s backtracking. Seems kinda weird for somebody who’s supposedly infallible.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.

I am.

The authority “to bind” and “to loose” to which Christ was referring, was the rabbinical authority. This can be determined in the original languages for that text. Being the observant Jews they were, the Apostles would have understood that.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Note: “I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here” was intended to be part of the blockquote. If only this forum had a preview mode. Sorry about that.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Can’t you at least offer the same level of respect to Catholics here?

The mission of this blog is not to respect or disrespect anyone, nor to make a group welcome or not.

I don’t think this blog is anti-Catholic. This is simply one topic of discussion, among many others, many of which are more controversial than this one. The more variety, the better.

You take this way too personally, for no reason.

Take it easier. It’s Friday. Have a great weekend,

Entelechy on May 11, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Here the Pope said something and now there’s backtracking. Seems kinda weird for somebody who’s supposedly infallible.

That’s because you have an embarassing preschool-level understanding of Papal Infallability. Do you seriously think that you have a better understanding of something like Papal infallability than the Catholics who are asked to believe it? All you are doing is exposing how much of an idiot you are on these things.

That doesn’t follow. No one here is bashing catholics. AP puts posts up here all the time with Atheists saying something about Christianity and vice versa. Get over it.

No one here is bashing Catholics? You told Catholics that they need to ABOLISH the papacy. honora said that the Catholic Church was worse than the Mafia. Valiant said that the Church was just doing this for money. If you don’t understand that this is classic Catholic-bashing, you’re either dumber than I thought or just a massive jerkoff.

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 3:24 PM

No one here is bashing Catholics? You told Catholics that they need to ABOLISH the papacy. honora said that the Catholic Church was worse than the Mafia. Valiant said that the Church was just doing this for money. If you don’t understand that this is classic Catholic-bashing…

Well, I certainly believe that it is, but I don’t take it personally. I know that I won’t convince anyone here that mine is The One True Faith. I mean, if people here can’t take Michelle’s word for it…

I’m gonna have ME a great weekend, that’s for sure. Everybody, be sure and remember your mothers this Sunday.

manwithblackhat on May 11, 2007 at 3:46 PM

For myself, I don’t assume PRCalDude is arguing in bad faith or that he is trying to belittle mine. The Scriptural references are helpful.

That being said, I disagree with both him and Calvin. I think Calvin is forgetting Luke 22:31-2 “confirm thy brethren” (although the KJV has that as “strengthen thy brethren” so that may not be helpful), and the role given to Peter (sometimes along with James and John, but always including Peter) in Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5. Calvin is, I think, somewhat ungenerous in his assessment of Peter’s importance — there are many places where the Bible makes a specific point of mentioning him.

If you go to drbo.org and search the New Testament for Peter, you get 151 hits. John gets 130. James gets 37. Of the three, just by sheer volume of mentions, Peter is the most important. I don’t imagine the results would be much different in the KJV, as the New Testament canon is the same (I believe — I’m not certain of that). John is certainly also highly important, especially from a Catholic view, in that Christ gives care of his mother to him from the Cross. But for Calvin to argue that he is simply one of the twelve doesn’t seem correct. A simple reading of the text argues for Peter’s importance.

I also do not doubt that if you gathered the Twelve Apostles in an Ecumencial council, their pronouncements would loose and bind. That’s why the church has them. But I would argue that Peter has been granted that privilege also.

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 3:49 PM

But — and this is my last point — we all know the Devil can argue scripture. But neither of us, Catholic or Protestant, likes to recognize that he prefers to have us argue it among ourselves.

Surely, we have the whole Muslim world to convert before we have these arguments, don’t we?

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I also do not doubt that if you gathered the Twelve Apostles in an Ecumencial council, their pronouncements would loose and bind. That’s why the church has them. But I would argue that Peter has been granted that privilege also.

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I would agree that Peter was mentioned more than the other Apostles. I would disagree that he would say that he had any more authority than the other 11.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Surely, we have the whole Muslim world to convert before we have these arguments, don’t we?

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Not if we don’t agree on justification, right?

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 4:32 PM

The Pope is just another socialist/communist liberal. He stepped on some toes that allow him his power; that is most liberal socialist/communists have no problem with abortion. Hence he had to backtrack.
Harsh words you say calling someone a socialist/communist? Look at his (and Popes before him) record on siding with America or England, or on his belief on distribution of wealth. Allowing his churches here in the U.S. to defy government law (amesty, child molestation), and his protection of people like Cardinal Mahoney who protected and fought not to provide valuable evidence regarding child molestation (and who also thumb their nose at law enforcement). God’s most precious gift,allowed to be so abused for so long. And then the abusers and the abusers protectors defended. Only the most agregious were slapped on the wrist.
One conservative value, abortion, and he can’t make that stick.

right2bright on May 11, 2007 at 4:49 PM

right2bright on May 11, 2007 at 4:49 PM

I don’t even know why I bother…

Sydney Carton on May 11, 2007 at 5:15 PM

If you like, PRCal, I’ll not suggest the idea of converting the Muslims as a good work from which one might derive salvific grace, but rather as merely fulfilling the great commission set out in Matthew 28:16-20, and as a simple matter of giving the glory to God to which he is due.

Fair enough?

:-)

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Fair enough?

:-)

The Colossus on May 11, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Sounds good to me ;)

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 7:10 PM

The Pope is just another socialist/communist liberal. He stepped on some toes that allow him his power; that is most liberal socialist/communists have no problem with abortion. Hence he had to backtrack.

This is without a doubt the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

aengus on May 11, 2007 at 11:34 PM

I’m not so sure that HotAir is the place for Catholic v Protestant apologetics. One thing is for sure, the one and only thing that distinguishes Catholics from everyone else is their belief in the primacy of Peter. The Orthodox religions have all the sacraments and the patriarchs are the equivalent of bishops. Some Protestants believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. Some have Confession.

I’m not arguing for the Catholic position here, although I believe it myself. But I realize that some very smart, very well-read, very holy people have not followed this line of logic and faith. And a great many have.

aengus, I concur with your assessment of the Pope not being a socialist/communist liberal. Reagan himself credited the fall of the Soviet empire to the Catholic Church. Every Pope from the 19th century on has been stridently anti-communist. The feast of St. Joseph the Worker is specifically on May Day to accentuate the difference between free Christian people and communist slavery.

As for the rewording of the Pope’s remarks: It seems the WaPo is making a distinction without difference. So what if they dropped the “Yes”.

And if they made the text more general than before that seems to be more of a problem for pro-abortion politicians in the US (not just Giuliani). Remember that the original question had to do with the Mexican Bishops’ authority to levy excommunication. The answer was, “Yes.” Now the Vatican is clarifying that it’s not just their authority, but also under the purview of all Bishops. I fail to see how anybody gets a pass.

Last point: the Pope usually speaks in Italian or German. That means that all these English quotes are translated. If the Vatican is unhappy with the way that Maureen Dowd’s editor translated the Pope, they have the right to issue a clarification, so long as it really is a translation and not a cover-up. Why does everybody rely on the infallibility of the MSM?

cmay on May 12, 2007 at 10:42 AM