Thanks Delia for sharing your insights as one who was 'there'.
One wonders if Fernandez really has any idea of the scandal he is causing amongst the faithful with his odd (and uncalled for) revisionism?
He seems to see himself as an elevated schoolmaster whose job is to tell off naughty children and slap punishing long-winded 'corrections' on them. The aim seems to be to humiliate the faithful and bring them into line with his eccentric new 'orthodoxy'.
He's clearly completely out of line with the historic church (it's uncontentious to say this - witness a plethora of papal and other statements) and is trying to reinvent how Catholics see things. How he's got into a position to do this is extremely unnerving!
Please keep feeding us your insights - it's good to know what's happening from Rome, to get your personal view which helps produce clarity to weather the storm.
As an aside: In spite of all that Fernandez and his collaborators (including popes!) throw at us, the little church I attend is absolutely thriving thanks to the TLM, and full of young families with babies and children. It's an example of the safe and stable social/moral space that the ancient liturgy creates, and of course we are all happy with Mary's central collaboration with God in the narrative of redemption. We don't recognise the issues which so concern Fernandez that he's willing to hurl huge stumbling blocks infront of the faithful!
Why I am still a Catholic: dedicated cranks like GianFilippo.
The green highlighted text in his book alludes to the miracle at the wedding at Cana.
"Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" Jesus said to his mother. "My hour has not yet come."
"... it is learned from the Fathers that Our Lord did not enter upon His public life without her consent. Likewise her request at Cana of Galilee was the beginning of the signs and mighty deeds by which He proved His mission" (The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary).
This simply is not true, in the common, everyday way we use the word “understand“. When we say, “I understand this topic,” or “I understand where so-and-so is coming from,“ we certainly don’t imply that takes years to come to any understanding of anything. We understand as we come to put things together and know the basic “problematic” of something or someone. We usually do this in the matter of a few minutes, rarely a few hours, and even more rarely a week or so. It’s only if we mean some kind of complete or total conceptualization over a historical period, that we must say, “it will take us years to know the effects of such-and-such.“ But that’s not what we ordinarily mean when we say, “I understand such and such.“ I maintain that Pope Leo XIV can be understood fairly plainly from his works and personnel decisions. It’s true that he has not published a great deal, but his actions tell us where he stands on doctrine and on personnel (the truism, people are policy, really does apply). His actions are perhaps the most salient aspect of his papacy so far.
It’s an evasion to say “it is still too early to get a true sense of Pope Leo based on what is coming out of the Vatican right now.” There’s no need to watch a tree for 5 or 10 years to know if it’s yielding apples or oranges. Prevost has shown clearly what his fruits are. The track record he had before becoming Pope is not beside the point, as if the man before Papal elevation is inexplicably entirely distinct from the man afterwards. Would we evade like this in any other context?
Yes we can have some idea of the man as priest & bishop, but of course being Pope is also a very different thing, responsible for a worldwide Church with many pressing issues. I simply mean to say that naturally one will only understand Pope Leo & the larger direction of his pontificate probably in hindsight, but at least well into next year when he has made some of his own appointments and set the course for his priorities.
I appreciate a first-hand report of the actual doings of those who administer these documents. The context matters a lot. Thank you!
Thank you Leila! Trying to give a fuller picture & perhaps a more “slanted” glance than you would get in a news report. Best to you & Phil!
Thanks Delia for sharing your insights as one who was 'there'.
One wonders if Fernandez really has any idea of the scandal he is causing amongst the faithful with his odd (and uncalled for) revisionism?
He seems to see himself as an elevated schoolmaster whose job is to tell off naughty children and slap punishing long-winded 'corrections' on them. The aim seems to be to humiliate the faithful and bring them into line with his eccentric new 'orthodoxy'.
He's clearly completely out of line with the historic church (it's uncontentious to say this - witness a plethora of papal and other statements) and is trying to reinvent how Catholics see things. How he's got into a position to do this is extremely unnerving!
Please keep feeding us your insights - it's good to know what's happening from Rome, to get your personal view which helps produce clarity to weather the storm.
As an aside: In spite of all that Fernandez and his collaborators (including popes!) throw at us, the little church I attend is absolutely thriving thanks to the TLM, and full of young families with babies and children. It's an example of the safe and stable social/moral space that the ancient liturgy creates, and of course we are all happy with Mary's central collaboration with God in the narrative of redemption. We don't recognise the issues which so concern Fernandez that he's willing to hurl huge stumbling blocks infront of the faithful!
Brilliant analysis, Delia, as always, especially when reporting on the DDF Prefect, you bring much needed light!
Invaluable insider insight in how such a document was presented and "received" in real time. Thanks for the good reporting.
Why I am still a Catholic: dedicated cranks like GianFilippo.
The green highlighted text in his book alludes to the miracle at the wedding at Cana.
"Woman, what is that to me and to thee?" Jesus said to his mother. "My hour has not yet come."
"... it is learned from the Fathers that Our Lord did not enter upon His public life without her consent. Likewise her request at Cana of Galilee was the beginning of the signs and mighty deeds by which He proved His mission" (The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary).
thank you for covering the notes from underground of this present vatican.
This simply is not true, in the common, everyday way we use the word “understand“. When we say, “I understand this topic,” or “I understand where so-and-so is coming from,“ we certainly don’t imply that takes years to come to any understanding of anything. We understand as we come to put things together and know the basic “problematic” of something or someone. We usually do this in the matter of a few minutes, rarely a few hours, and even more rarely a week or so. It’s only if we mean some kind of complete or total conceptualization over a historical period, that we must say, “it will take us years to know the effects of such-and-such.“ But that’s not what we ordinarily mean when we say, “I understand such and such.“ I maintain that Pope Leo XIV can be understood fairly plainly from his works and personnel decisions. It’s true that he has not published a great deal, but his actions tell us where he stands on doctrine and on personnel (the truism, people are policy, really does apply). His actions are perhaps the most salient aspect of his papacy so far.
It’s an evasion to say “it is still too early to get a true sense of Pope Leo based on what is coming out of the Vatican right now.” There’s no need to watch a tree for 5 or 10 years to know if it’s yielding apples or oranges. Prevost has shown clearly what his fruits are. The track record he had before becoming Pope is not beside the point, as if the man before Papal elevation is inexplicably entirely distinct from the man afterwards. Would we evade like this in any other context?
Yes we can have some idea of the man as priest & bishop, but of course being Pope is also a very different thing, responsible for a worldwide Church with many pressing issues. I simply mean to say that naturally one will only understand Pope Leo & the larger direction of his pontificate probably in hindsight, but at least well into next year when he has made some of his own appointments and set the course for his priorities.