Thank you all, R_C, Marc Antony, Catholic Dude, ahs, and others, for your support and patience on this topic!
(Just a quick note to ahs; all the commandments others than the 3rd commandment that you cited were not changed, but were added to with what could be called ‘more commandments’ or ‘supplemental commandments’ that are based on the 10 Commandments, but fulfill them without changing them; however the 3rd
seems to involve some change of the actual OT commandment (because it “gets rid of” the part where we have to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest) rather than an addition of extra complimentary commandments to it.)
(Speaking to all now, not just to ahs):
I think I have gotten a little bit more understanding of this portion of the catechism, by going to the Italian language version available on the Vatican website. The issue of translation of the Catechism to English has particularly to deal with my proposed solution “B.” located in the 17th post on this thread, where I express concern over interpreting “They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere.” as meaning “The obligations…” or “Their fundamental content…” rather than simply “The Ten Commandments”.
In the Italian:
Poiché enunciano i doveri fondamentali dell’uomo verso Dio e
verso il prossimo, i dieci comandamenti rivelano, nel loro contenuto essenziale, obbligazioni gravi. Sono sostanzialmente immutabili e obbligano sempre e dappertutto. Nessuno potrebbe dispensare da essi. I dieci comandamenti sono incisi da Dio nel cuore dell’essere umano
To preface how the Italian translation helped me, I would like to illustrate the language difficulties in English with my favorite quote from the great movie, ‘Clue’:
Woman: “He threatened to kill me in public!”
Man 1: “Why would he kill her in public?”
Man 2: "No, I think she means, ‘in public, he threatened to kill her’ "
In reading this Italian, we see that for us the “fundamentally immutable and [they] oblige” becomes “sostanzialmente immutabili e obbligano”, where sostanzialmente means “essentially” or “fundamentally” as an adverb. I did not before see “fundamentally” as referring to the commandments themselves as a qualification of their immutability [and perhaps obligation], but rather as an emphasis of the reality of their immutability;
I took it originally to mean:
“It is fundamental [or essential] to the existence [or nature] of the 10 Commandments that they be immutable”
whereas in reality it could also mean (at least I think, with my limited knowledge of Italian),
“The 10 Commandments are immutable in their fundamentals, (but not in their non-fundamentals)”.
In the second meaning here, which fits well with my proposed solution “B” earlier and also hearkens back to the first sentence of this paragraph of the Catechism where it speaks about the grave obligations revealed by The Ten Commandments “in their primordial content”, one might equate this to “in their fundamental, essential content”, which could imply some or at least one commandment (The Third) has “non-essential content” or “non-fundamental content”.
If this meaning is what was intended by the author(s) of the Catechism, then it certainly follows that the 10 Commandments
can indeed be changed in their non-fundamental aspects (I am not teaching this or saying this is definitely true, I am just saying what would happen if indeed this was the intention of the author(s) of the Catechism, where their intention might have been otherwise).
It would put me at greater rest if someone with a knowledge of Italian could tell me any more nuanced meaning of the adverb “sostanzialmente”, whether it is usually used to describe something that is ‘in the fundamentals’ of a given thing, or whether it is usually used to say something that is ‘important to the nature of’ or ‘essential’ to a thing; in English there is, I think, a slight difference between these two meanings (“in the fundamentals” implies the thing can have non-fundamentals, whereas “fundamental to” or “essential to” means that the description (adjective or verb) that adverb refers to is somehow necessary for the thing or applies to all parts of the thing.)
Also, it would help to know if adverbs like “sostanzialmente” in Italian can typically be used to modify multiple parts of speech; here I assume it is modifying “immutable” alone , so that it is not just “in the fundamentals” that the 10 Commandments are obliged always and everywhere, but in all aspects of the 10 Commandments, even the non-fundamental aspects (unless they have been removed), everyone is obliged to obey them (this isn’t a problem with the sabbath however; if the sabbath (understood as a day different from Sunday) has been changed (since, according to the interpretation above, it can be changed if it is not-fundamental), then the changed “10 Commandments” wouldn’t just be changed at that time, but would be changed always and everywhere.
This understanding of the application of the word “sostanzialmente” has deeper ramifications, because it says that Christ’s Fulfillment of the Law and “abolition” of The Sabbath was retroactive as well; not only did He change The Commandments (in their non-essential aspects) for those living after His life, but before His life as well, potentially giving hope of salvation for the Ancient Hebrews who rendered an outward, visible, public, and regular worship, but who failed in one way or another to “keep holy the Sabbath” according to the Mosaic Law at the time.
However, if “sostanzialmente” is also intended to modify “obbligano”, if adverbs like that do tend to modify both adjective and verb when put in such close proximity, then it implies something a bit different, in my understanding (which I wish to be entirely in line with The Church’s understanding).
Looking now at the Latin Version:
Ea fundamentaliter sunt immutabilia et eorum obligationes semper et ubique valent. Nemo ab eis posset dispensare. Decem mandata in corde hominis sunt a Deo inscripta.
Unfortunately, the Latin version (which I feel like is “more official” as it is the ‘typica editio’)
uses, for 'fundamentally", the word “fundamentaliter”, which I cannot find a good direct translation of, but which can be safely assumed to mean something to do with “foundations” or “basis” judging from the closely related word “fundamentum” which means “a foundation, basis” (from the University of Notre Dame website).
The word “dispensare” confuses me as well, as in a hyper-literal translation the phrase in which it is found would read “no one from them (the commandments) is able to (manage, distribute, or arrange)”; however in English to “dispense from” is commonly understood to mean “to remove one from the obligation of doing” and maybe not to “manage from”; the English meaning certainly implies removal, while the Latin meaning may or may not imply removal, but might imply change (managing away from).
If this were truly so, that the Latin means to “manage from” and not “to remove obligation of doing”, and that this meaning was the intention of the authors of the Catechism, then it would seem that they are saying, or repeating, that no one can change (manage) the 10 Commandments, (without any reference to the fundamentals of them in the same sentence, but rather in prior sentences). Perhaps by “nemo” they mean “no only human person” rather than “no one at all, not even God Incarnate”.
-If they mean “no one at all is able to manage (change) of the commandments” then we are back to square one, where not even Christ is able to change the commandments."
-If they mean “no one solely human person is able to manage (change) of the commandments”, then Christ is able to, as He is both God and man, and not solely man.
-If they mean “no one at all is able to manage (change) of the fundamental aspects of the Commandments” (which is not apparently obvious to me, since they do not say “fundamental aspects” but just say “The Commandments”), then Christ is able to.
-If they mean “no one is able to dispense of the Commandments” that means no one can say (or give [formal] permission) that it is okay for someone not to hold the Commandments; (though that would require further explanation, as it seems that those with mental disabilities do not accrue personal culpability when violating the commandments, their culpability might be called in a way “dispensed”, though then again in order to violate something you must be able to choose to violate it…).
-If they mean “no one at all is currently able to manage (change) of the fundamental aspects of the Commandments as the Commandments stand now” then that implies they could have gone through a change (of their nonessential parts) in the past (with Christ), or that the commandments really always meant what they now mean (despite what is written in the Hebrew 10 Commandments), thanks to what might be (and I don’t know if this is Church teaching, so don’t take it as true unless you find a source from the Church to say that it is Church teaching) the retroactive nature of the Christ’s Fulfillment of the Commandments.
Regardless, there is enough vagueness and apparent support for different interpretations here, that I did not see before, that I am no longer seriously troubled by any apparent contradiction, which is not a contradiction but probably some heavily nuanced, complex teaching.
Perhaps more insight will come along as I continue to read the relevant Encyclical “Dies Domini” that I was so kindly informed of here!
