Why?

[CatholicforChrist]

Why does Pope John Paul II use the first-person, singular rather than the first-person, plural in his Encyclicals and other writings? In the past Popes have always used the plural when naming their Pontificates or imparting a blessing or referring to themselves in any way. An example of this can be found as late as Paul VI, making JPII the only Pope to speak in the singular. Why is this?

Example: Paul VI, [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]:
"Upon this work, and upon all of you, and especially upon married couples, we invoke the abundant graces of the God of holiness and mercy, and in pledge thereof we impart to you all our apostolic blessing."

John Paul II, [i]Centesimus annus[/i]:
"May her maternal intercession accompany humanity towards the next Millennium, in fidelity to him who "is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (cf. Heb 13:8), Jesus Christ our Lord, in whose name I cordially impart my blessing to all."

For good measure, the anniversary being commemorated by John Paul II's [i]Centesimus annus[/i], Pope Leo XIII's [i]Rerum Novarum[/i]:
"On each of you, venerable brethren, and on your clergy and people, as an earnest of God's mercy and a mark of Our affection, we lovingly in the Lord bestow the apostolic benediction."


Does anyone know why John Paul II uses the singular instead of the plural? I do not know if this is simply a mistranslation by the ICEL (or whatever body or individual translates his Enyclicals and other writings into English) or if it has some significant implication on his part of if it is just an arbitrary change for the sake of change or what. If anyone can help, please lend your support. Thanks.

[qfnol31]

I think it has to do with the fact he's never been crowned.

[Theoketos]

This was just brought up in a discussion. John Paul II does it out of humility.

[CatholicforChrist]

Interesting. So is the crowning thing an actual reason? Was Paul VI crowned? Also, how is it humble to say "my" rather than "our" wouldn't that be prideful if anything (I am not saying that it is)? Also, is that the appropriate time to be humble, when acting as the Supreme Head of the Church? I mean, if none of the previous Holy Fathers saw it expedient to exert humility in such a regard, why would it behoove this Pope to do so? Also, couldn't this confuse the faithful into thinking that the role of the Pope has somehow changed? I am kind of confused as to this practice that he seems to have adopted. I have been wondering about it for quite some time and for some reason cannot reconcile it rationally, so if someone could answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. God bless.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 29 2004, 12:16 AM'] Interesting. So is the crowning thing an actual reason? Was Paul VI crowned? Also, how is it humble to say "my" rather than "our" wouldn't that be prideful if anything (I am not saying that it is)? [/quote]
I believe John Paul II is the second recent Pope (preceeded by John Paul I) not to be crowned. Also, humility can be a bit relative. In this case, I'll explain some more why he possibly could do it.

[quote]Also, is that the appropriate time to be humble, when acting as the Supreme Head of the Church? I mean, if none of the previous Holy Fathers saw it expedient to exert humility in such a regard, why would it behoove this Pope to do so?[/quote]

Maybe, but recently there seem to be many dissenters and "reformists" who want there to be less separation of the clergy. Though this doesn't give into that, it does leave the Pope open for dialogue with the people, for it doesn't cut them off. Also, it is proper for this Pope and none before (excepting John Paul I) because of the type of society we live in. Different things work at different times.

[quote]Also, couldn't this confuse the faithful into thinking that the role of the Pope has somehow changed? I am kind of confused as to this practice that he seems to have adopted.[/quote]

I don't think so just because of the fact that I bet most people don't actually notice it very much. Also, I don't think the coronation is necessary for the Papacy, just a tradition. In this way, the Pope may be defying all those around him who are trying to control his Papacy, showing it to be his.

[quote]I have been wondering about it for quite some time and for some reason cannot reconcile it rationally, so if someone could answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. God bless.[/quote]

I hope I've helped some.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist']Also, how is it humble to say "my" rather than "our" wouldn't that be prideful if anything (I am not saying that it is)?[/quote]
The "we" you speak of is known as the "royal we," and it was first used by royalty, not the church. I'd imagine that the Holy Father chooses not to use the "royal we" because he wants to break the association between the church and the medieval monarchy. After all, such a monarchy no longer exists, so the "royal we" has become irrelevant. Most people would just wonder, "Why is he saying we? Does he have multiple personality disorder?"

[Guest Aluigi]

i really don't think it matters that much if he talked in first person singular or plural or third person or whatever... i donno... maybe i'm missing why it's a big deal

[CatholicforChrist]

I don't know if it's a big deal; it was just something that had caught my attention that I did not understand. I had different speculations but no realy facts, so I asked it on here. One of my friends also recognized this as well. Also, GF, the Pope is the highest of royalty (and he is still the monarch and king of Vatican City), so I would think the royal we would still apply, no? Qfnol, thanks for the thoughts. I will be glad to hear your further commentary on the first matter. God bless.

[Guest Aluigi]

he has less of a temporal kingdom and i guess that's seen as a sign of a temporal royalty... just speculation..

[Good Friday]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist']Also, GF, the Pope is the highest of royalty (and he is still the monarch and king of Vatican City), so I would think the royal we would still apply, no?[/quote]
I think that this Pope prefers to think of the papacy, or at least his pontificate, in slightly more Christian terms. I think he likes to think of himself more as Servant of the servants of God than as King of Vatican City. Chief Shepherd, rather than Chief Monarch.

. . . both are true of the papacy, it is both a ministry of service and leadership, but sometimes it's necessary to emphasize one over the other. But I think what this Pope has done is to balance the two: he's pointed out that leadership can and should serve, but that service requires a bit of leadership.

It could be a bit more practical than that: people aren't going to respond to the King of Vatican City anymore, but they might respond to the Servant of the servants of God. At any rate, it is a bit more biblical, don't you think?

[CatholicforChrist]

Well, I think the fact that every single Pope (including pre-Middle Ages, at least as far as I have read) has used the so-called "royal we" is testimony enough that it is a venerable tradition, not some archaic, rich man's title (not that you necessarily implied this in any way). I don't think it is as biblical simply because Saint Peter (and the Papacy in general) is lifted to having dominion over all the earth: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the earth, so also shall it be bound in heaven, etc." With that being said, in light of such writings as [i]Unam Sanctam[/i], the exaltation of the Papacy above all authority on earth would seem to be the most biblical and solidly Catholic view on the Papacy, thus the Pope should enjoy such titles as the royal we. As I said, the fact that every other Pope has used this says something for its validity. The Popes closest to biblical times are more likely to be following the biblical concepts

[qfnol31]

Actually, Peter never used "we" that I know of.

[CatholicforChrist]

Ha, I don't know didn't he say something like that in the Council of Jerusalem. He may have simply been speaking in the passive voice, though. What about Acts xv.20: "But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood." I think even Saint Peter was using the royal we Also, is anyone sure that this "we" does not denote the guidance of the Holy Ghost? That was one of my speculations. I think it may have been aroused by some commentary, but I am unsure. Thanks. God bless.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist']Also, is anyone sure that this "we" does not denote the guidance of the Holy Ghost? That was one of my speculations. I think it may have been aroused by some commentary, but I am unsure.[/quote]
My feeling is that I don't really know what the "we" means (although I've always heard the "royal we" explanation), but I do know that even if perhaps not using the "we" is not the most prudent step to take, the Pope has the purest and best of intentions in not using it. Could he be wrong? Of course, I think it would be silly to say that the Pope couldn't be wrong for using "I" instead of "we" -- that's taking infallibility to an extreme that it shouldn't be taken to.

My feeling is that it doesn't upset me that Pope John Paul II doesn't use the "we," but it wouldn't upset me if the next Pope did use the "we." I just really don't see any big deal about it, myself.

[CatholicforChrist]

True, I understand your point. I am simply always weary and disheartened with change (especially "change for the sake of change" that has no purpose). Saint Thomas Aquinas says that a change should not be made, even if it slightly would improve a given action or scenario, that it should only be made if it would substantially change and improve such a scenario. This is why I am so disheartened by the arbitrary changes and (even more so) by the negative changes that only hurt the Church and the faithful. I suppose all we can do is pray for a restoration of genuine Catholicism in our Church, in our country (in this case it would not be a restoration but an implementation), and especially in our Catholic schools and universities.