Each language has its own ways of communicating and dramatising meaning because each language is a product of its own culture. You can't speak Spanish like an Englishman. To be fluent in Spanish, you really need to be able to express it with a Spanish brain, so to speak, using Spanish idiom. What can 'mess' figuratively and colloquially mean in Spanish? I don't know. Now, if you can find an English translation of a Spanish website criticising the pope for wanting 'mess' and 'trouble in the dioceses', that would be a different thing, but perhaps not. After all, native Spanish-speakers are just as susceptible to being Monday morning quarterbacks as native English-speakers, except that unlike the Monday morning quarterbacks who know how the game ended, we don't know how this game will end.
I cannot understand why the Holy Father wants the Church to be a mess? He needs to choose his words a little more carefully.
I am very pleased if that is the case. I do understand issues with translations as I have lived in non-English speaking countries myself and come across poor translations.
Is a pope chosen by the will of the cardinals, or by the will of the cardinals as influenced by the Holy Spirit, as the text of the Bible was produced not merely out of the wills of its respective writers but out of their wills as influenced by the Holy Spirit?
Isn't the Holy Spirit in its activities concerning the Church the identical process of Christ never abandoning his Church?
Was the election of Pope Francis a mistake? Was the election of John Paul I a mistake? Why have a pope who only serves 30 days? Perhaps critics ought to presume first that when a pope does something which they find difficult to understand, the gap lies between them and the pope, ie., between them and the Spirit who always does things that are true. The gap is not necessarily between the pope and the Spirit of Truth. The presumption may be relaxed and overturned in the passage of time but to query the pope five minutes after he has done something seems to be jumping the gun.
The hard-won democratic right to criticise your president, governor, senator, congressman, supreme court justice, etc. etc. five minutes after he or she has said or done something is sustained by the assurance that nothing they do is explicitly, or by prudent assumption, infallible or possibly so. Secular political philosophy does not contain anything about infallibility or indefectibility. The will of the majority prevails, but the majority extends concessions to the opinions of the minority because that's the only way to make things work in the long run. Otherwise, there will be civil war. Religious philosophy is different. Catholic religious philosophy explicitly allows for infallibility and indefectibility and for a state of self-excommunication if you refuse to honour either.
So you or I don't understand what Francis is saying? All that means is that we don't understand. It doesn't mean he's wrong. For that, we have to wait and see. It might be helpful to realise that what we hear him say and what the people whom he is trying to reach hear him say may be quite different things, and the more important of the two, for the moment, anyway, is the latter. We want them to like what they hear him say because why would they move towards him otherwise?
Pope personally calls Traditional Catholic writer, says he considers it important to be criticized.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
There are some who appear to be looking for any excuse to criticize him and if they truly don't understand it is often for lack of making even the slightest effort.
Sadly, some who see themselves as traditionalists are in some ways just as, if not more, modernist than those they criticize.