The discussants are sinsere and quite bewildered, all leading to a confusion of understanding of Pope Francis. The two are interpretatively confused in their methodology. They find apparently incomprehensible muddling in the statements of the pope. They try this and try that and then, so to speak, fold their hands in dispair, evening questioning if, well, was that was what the pope meant --which I can well "understand". "Understanding" here arises because I am able to unify the manifold of statements of the gentlemen within an interpretative framework such that unity arises. What I did not do is dismisss this or that statement, rather sought the common orgainizing denominator for all statements.

In order to understand the current pope, as similar procedure is necessary. Having some experience of protestantism and its emotionalizing effects upon Cathoicism in Latin America, I guess that I have )a focal principle that could begin to allow me to organize Pope Francis' discordant statements into a unity. "Could begin to" is the key factor here. I just do not have enough informations (e.g., how does the pope justify his often lack of genuflecing or allowing the Host to be given out in plastic cups at the Rio jambery. What I am suggestiing is that a fully coherent interpretation of the pope is not yet possible (at least for me). However, the two gentlemen were methodological mistaken in asking here and there if the pope really meant this or that. I admit that I must hold back my judgment, which does not liberate me from interpretative perplexity. Upto date I find as tekkubg Bp Falley's thesis that Pope Francis is a "modernist". But then that term must be examined. The interpretative circle goes on.