Pope John Paul I

[ProVobis]

I’ve always found this amusing, most people aren’t able to tell the difference been veneration and worship, and the people that can, just parrot out some line from formal teaching which in itself is a bit suspect anyways.

More than likely, it’s usually a mistranslation that they’re defending. Happens a lot.

 

[picnica]

I just wanted to point out that you shouldn’t say that Pope John Paul I, or Pope John Paul II, or any Catholic for that matter worships Mary. That is incorrect. Anyone who does actually worship the Blessed Mother is committing a sin. Worship is something due to God alone. What I’m hoping you meant to say is that Pope John Paul I and II both venerated Mary. Which is perfectly acceptable and in fact the Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary deserves a special kind of veneration above all of the saints and angels, which has a specific name (though I can’t recall it off the top of my head just now).

Anyway, I’d also like to point out that Pope John Paul I did not “start” veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is a tradition that goes back to the beginning of the Church. Some Protestants like to incorrectly claim that veneration of Mary began in the Middle Ages, but this is false.

I am sorry you are correct worship was a poor word choice. To clarify: He went to Fatima. Started the rosary praying that Pope John Paul II finished. He wanted communism to fail. He has many writing (for 33 days) dedicated to Mary.
I was writing in a hurry.

 

[picnica]

There is NO worship of Mary in the Catholic Church.
There has never been and there will never be worship of Mary.

If you are actually Catholic (not a troll), then you are VERY confused.

If you are a Catholic you need to relax. This is a very troubling statement for a Catholic.

 

[picnica]

Complete nonsense, one of the many stories that begin with “John Paul I was going to do ___________, but he died first.” I have heard these from the right, the left and everything in between. The direct inverse of the nonsense claimed above (by this ignorant person who claims that JP2 worshipped Our Lady) is the one that said that JP1 was going to bring back the old Latin Mass, but died first.

Read some of his writings and books about him and you will probably feel differently. He grew up very poor and felt that have many children causes hardship. He went hungry quite a bit as a child. He had written a letter (as a Cardinal) to all his Bishops to tolerate and don’t bring up the Birth Control issue. Be tolerant of it. Quoting from memory. There was no mention of him bringing back old Latin mass. He was on most of the Vatican II council and was very happy with the outcome. Thank you for calling me ignorant that is very Catholic of you.

 

[catharina]

If you are a Catholic you need to relax. This is a very troubling statement for a Catholic.

Repeating:

"There is NO worship of Mary in the Catholic Church.
There has never been and there will never be worship of Mary.

If you are actually Catholic (not a troll), then you are VERY confused."

Now what actually bothered you?
That I said you could be a troll?
The site has been flooded with trolls over the past month -
here one day, gone the next.

You have **three posts **to your name -
but I should relax because you’re not a troll?

Terrific - then you certainly mis-spoke.

 

[jtodisco]

Catharina, I think it would be good if you eased up a little on Picnica. He/She is new to the site and has admitted his/her mistake in wording things properly with respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary. I know it can be a little frustrating when people who aren’t Catholic make the claim that we Catholics worship the Blessed Mother and that some people go into automatic “defense mode” when this is said. But it would be much better to use that confusion that arises as a teaching moment instead of a moment to get defensive. Also, being automatically mistrustful of new members is going to really turn people away from this site. People who might be in need of some help that could be offered to them here.

Both of you were a bit rude by insinuating the other was not Catholic. That sort of comment is never going to help create honest and open dialogue.

Picnica, you should try to understand though that Catharina is correct when they say that the site has been plagued by “trolls” for a while now. And in case you aren’t familiar with the term (as I wasn’t when I first came to this site) a “troll” is someone who comes onto the site who only seeks to cause problems. I reported one just yesterday who had just created an account, and began writing mean and inaccurate anti-Catholic bull**** on various threads.

And now that I’ve gotten into the middle of an argument that I wasn’t involved in I’m going to step back and hope to remain unscathed.

 

[ProVobis]

Repeating:

"There is NO worship of Mary in the Catholic Church.
There has never been and there will never be worship of Mary.

Then this from the Vatican website must have been mistranslated:

1. It is therefore, a pleasure for us, a full century having passed since the Pontiff of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed this singular privilege of the Virgin Mother of God, to summarize the whole doctrinal position and conclude in these words of the same Pontiff, asserting that this doctrine “vouched for in Sacred Scripture according to the interpretation of the Fathers, is handed down by them in so many of their important writings, is expressed and celebrated in so many illustrious monuments of renowned antiquity, and proposed and confirmed by the greatest and highest decision of the Church” (Bull Ineffabilis Deus), so that to pastors and faithful there is nothing "more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin. (Ibidem.)
   …
2. But where - as is the case in almost all dioceses, there exists a church in which the Virgin Mother of God is worshipped with more intense devotion, thither on stated days let pilgrims flock together in great numbers and publicly and in the open give glorious expression to their common Faith and their common love toward the Virgin Most Holy. We have no doubt that this will be done in an especial manner at the Grotto of Lourdes, where there is such ardent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without stain of sin.
   …
3. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html

Point is, our discussion is more about English semantics than having theological significance.

 

[jtodisco]

It may be semantics, but it is important that the distinction is made because otherwise people can be led astray.

From the Catechism:

971 “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs…This very special devotion…differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (underlining added by me)

 

[vsedriver]

For this to be true, for the Holy Spirit to “allow” for his death is then to discount the Holy Spirit actually choosing the Pope through the conclave.

I would have to say that both of these are contrary to Catholic Teaching.

I would agree. It is more likely that the Holy Spirit moved the cardinals correctly but that John Paul 1 was not intended to reign for long. Whether a pope’s reign is long or short it is still of importance to the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

It may be semantics, but it is important that the distinction is made because otherwise people can be led astray.

Brings us back to the mistranslation argument. By the way wasn’t the Catechism written in French first, then translated to Latin, and now we’re reading that translation in English? How can a few not be led astray?

 

[catharina]

Catharina, I think it would be good if you eased up a little on Picnica. He/She is new to the site and has admitted his/her mistake in wording things properly with respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary. I know it can be a little frustrating when people who aren’t Catholic make the claim that we Catholics worship the Blessed Mother and that some people go into automatic “defense mode” when this is said. But it would be much better to use that confusion that arises as a teaching moment instead of a moment to get defensive. Also, being automatically mistrustful of new members is going to really turn people away from this site. People who might be in need of some help that could be offered to them here.

Both of you were a bit rude by insinuating the other was not Catholic. That sort of comment is never going to help create honest and open dialogue.

Picnica, you should try to understand though that Catharina is correct when they say that the site has been plagued by “trolls” for a while now. And in case you aren’t familiar with the term (as I wasn’t when I first came to this site) a “troll” is someone who comes onto the site who only seeks to cause problems. I reported one just yesterday who had just created an account, and began writing mean and inaccurate anti-Catholic bull**** on various threads.

And now that I’ve gotten into the middle of an argument that I wasn’t involved in I’m going to step back and hope to remain unscathed.

There’s no argument.
I said what needed to be said.

 

[OraLabora]

Funny story, I was at the World Benedictine Oblate’s Congress in Rome in 2009, and a French delegate rose to make a comment to one of the speakers. In French he said “nous vénérons la Vierge Marie” (“we venerate the Virgin Mary”).

However the simultaneous translator rendered it, in English, as “we worship the Virgin Mary”. There was a huge outcry from the English-speaking delegates (mostly Americans) and the poor guy was trying to figure out what he said wrong. Then one of the Americans took him to task for saying that we “worship” the Virgin Mary. He replied that he said no such thing. Then it clicked, it was the translator who made the error. During the lunch the poor guy (who actually spoke excellent English), had to make a short apology and explain what happened.

So I agree, people need to lighten up. Mistakes do happen especially when not writing in one’s first language.

 

[malphono]

Then this from the Vatican website must have been mistranslated:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html

The Latin text for paragraph 18 from the same source reads in part (emphasis added):

… nihil sit « dulcius, nihil carius, quam ferventissimo affectu Deiparam Virginem absque labe originali conceptam **ubique colere, venerari, invocare et praedicare » **

I don’t have a Latin dictionary handy, and can’t seem to find a definition of “colere” online.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin text for paragraph 18 from the same source reads in part (emphasis added):

I don’t have a Latin dictionary handy, and can’t seem to find a definition of “colere” online.

from my Pocket Latin Dictionary,

colo,colere,colui,cultum - (amongst other meanings) to bestow care upon, to guard, protect, honour, revere, worship, cherish, love.

I would hate to having to translate this for some theological scholars. OraLabora, right on.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Funny story, I was at the World Benedictine Oblate’s Congress in Rome in 2009, and a French delegate rose to make a comment to one of the speakers. In French he said “nous vénérons la Vierge Marie” (“we venerate the Virgin Mary”).

However the simultaneous translator rendered it, in English, as “we worship the Virgin Mary”. There was a huge outcry from the English-speaking delegates (mostly Americans) and the poor guy was trying to figure out what he said wrong. Then one of the Americans took him to task for saying that we “worship” the Virgin Mary. He replied that he said no such thing. Then it clicked, it was the translator who made the error. During the lunch the poor guy (who actually spoke excellent English), had to make a short apology and explain what happened.

So I agree, people need to lighten up. Mistakes do happen especially when not writing in one’s first language.

Mistakes are made, but we should always correct each other when we mis-speak something of this magnitude. This is one of the main areas of contention between us and protestants. They point to us and say we are worshiping false idols. So when someone makes a post that says - “he was the first pope to worship Mary” of course that should be corrected. And we should not tell the person making the correction that he “ought to chill”.

Anyway, I think God took John Paul I so soon, because He just couldn’t wait for John Paul II !

 

[malphono]

colo,colere,colui,cultum - (amongst other meanings) to bestow care upon, to guard, protect, honour, revere, worship, cherish, love.

Thanks. Interesting that the Vatican website translation of that word agrees with what Google gives, but I ran across this about the etymology of the English word “worship” which I found most interesting:

O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) “condition of being worthy, honor, renown,” from weorð “worthy” (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of “reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being” is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.

 

[catharina]

Mistakes are made, but we should always correct each other when we mis-speak something of this magnitude. This is one of the main areas of contention between us and protestants. They point to us and say we are worshiping false idols. So when someone makes a post that says - “he was the first pope to worship Mary” of course that should be corrected. And we should not tell the person making the correction that he “ought to chill”.

Anyway, I think God took John Paul I so soon, because He just couldn’t wait for John Paul II !

I do thank you.

Being told to chill, to lighten up, to ignore a lie (later called a “mistake”), to relax —
it’s a little late for that in terms of my life. Also I’ve been involved of late in Moral Theology
threads and am surprised I didn’t suffer a stroke from some of the anti-Catholic screed.

If someone is not a troll, why would they be offended by the term?
I will always be offended when another insists that a lie about the Church is the truth.

PS - in regard to the short reign of Pope John Paul I, I was able to learn from him. A few years ago I had the opportunity to care for babies and toddlers in their homes - all conceived in-vitro and very late in the lives of their parents. I had to ask myself where the Church stood regarding these babies after their birth.

What I found was the example of JP I offering a “welcome to the human family” to baby Louise Brown after her birth as the first Test Tube baby. His words were of great help to me.

 

[ProVobis]

This is one of the main areas of contention between us and protestants. They point to us and say we are worshiping false idols.

Indeed, it is always a major problem to try to resolve differences in different languages, ie the Church speaking in Latin and the Protestant world speaking in Germanic (English). As the Italians say, “Traduttore, tradittore” or “Translator, traitor.” Small wonder wars are started.

That said, I did find some short documents written by JPI. Don’t know if it really states his position on anything.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/angelus/documents/hf_jp-i_ang_24091978_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/angelus/documents/hf_jp-i_ang_10091978_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/angelus/documents/hf_jp-i_ang_03091978_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/angelus/documents/hf_jp-i_ang_27081978_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks. Interesting that the Vatican website translation of that word agrees with what Google gives, but I ran across this about the etymology of the English word “worship” which I found most interesting:

We’re also vulnerable if we use “venerate.” Can’t win.

venerate
1620s, from L. veneratus, pp. of venerari “to reverence, worship” (see veneration). Related: Venerated, venerating.

 

[malphono]

We’re also vulnerable if we use “venerate.” Can’t win.

I’m not so sure. It seem to me that the etymology of “worship” makes it rather innocuous. I think it shows that there has been a gradual shift in the common meaning of the word, but looking at the Vatican translation (and Google ) it also shows that the original meaning ('honor") is still valid.

Maybe the Italian text of that Encyclical will be the tie-breaker:

… nulla è più caro e più dolce ai sacri pastori e a tutti i fedeli «che onorare, venerare, invocare e predicare con fervore e affetto la vergine Madre di Dio concepita senza macchia originale»