So, Ed, you would interpret the lack of discussion about the liturgy as a sign that they likely have already come to a consensus to dismantle Traditionis Custodes? I was worried that the lack of discussion was simply the cardinals choosing to avoid a controversial topic in need of concrete solutions in favor of less controversial topics that lend themselves to far less concrete statements. In other words, I think it's a lot easier to get away with vague statements like, "We need to evangelize," or "Synodality is good," than it would be to make a similarly vague statement like, "The liturgy is important."
My read of it was that liturgy was too big of an issue to tackle in the limited time they had, and that the Holy Father just wants to get back into the habit of having any consultative meetings to begin with. Liturgy deserves a longer and more careful process of dealing with than they could likely tackle in two days, because we're not just talking about the status quo of the last 5-6 years or even going back to the days of Pope Benedict, it's a much longer and more complicated situation that needs to be addressed well.
I think it would be a mistake for Pope Leo to waltz in and make huge liturgical changes overnight, and he's wise to move deliberately and reflectively on anything to do with the liturgical question.
People forget that even Pope Benedict, who had spent decades in the Curia, likely quietly arguing in favor of more "liberal" permissions for the old rite during most of his tenure, waited two years to publish Summorum Pontificum. And Francis, probably conscious of Benedict's continued presence, waited eight years before publishing Traditionis Custodes.
There's no rush to "fix" the divide. Right now there are some deeply entrenched ideologues on both sides of the issue who have at times acted intolerably and dismissively of anyone they perceive as "not on the right side of the issue," but the fact remains that most Church leaders are either indifferent to some of "the fuss" over the liturgy or have preferences but don't see the need to make a wedge out of it.
It seems inevitable that at some point, say, fifty years from now, there will be broad permissions for people to celebrate at least some modified version of the TLM and a large contingent of Catholics will avail themselves of that option. I suspect the main question for Leo is how to thread the needle in the interim, and it's prudent to move organically and get people's buy-in rather than feeding into some culture war dynamic.
Yeah. Putting it off also gives them some time to dip their toes into the topic more gradually, and to feel each other out on a controversial topic, since it's not like the topic was banned from discussion.
Ryan, many of my family are in the Charlotte Diocese and I am mindful of the pain these faithful Catholics are enduring under Bishop Martin's lack of concern for his flock.
It can't be ignored that Francis appointed a ton of Cardinals who were as ideological on liturgy as he was. These isn't BXVI's or even JPII's college. I'm not sure we would land on a just resolution if Leo rushed it with the current college
I'm increasingly convinced that how you do something matters nearly as much as what you do, because how you do something, especially in a position of authority, communicates a lot about how you actually regard norms, laws, and your own power. Ironically, Pope Francis seemed to take a very absolutist approach to his office, freely dispensing with his own laws when it suited him, or arrogating power to himself and his curia that seemingly belonged to diocesan bishops or even pastors (eg, the infamous "no TLM times in the parish bulletin" directive from the DDW). This made it hard to take his reforming efforts and statements about synodality seriously, because his own actions seemed to undercut his words. In fairness to our late pontiff, I do think he was sincere in his statements and genuinely desired to make improvements through his actions as pope—but I also think he was prickly, emotionally driven, prone to favoritism, inconsistent, and very bad at speaking off-the-cuff.
My hope for Pope Leo is that he continues to operate in the manner he's shown so far: cautious, considered, genuinely consultative, and respectful of existing norms, laws, and structures. While this likely won't bring change to some hot-button issues as fast as many people would like, I think that this approach communicates an attitude of "the law exists, and the Pope follows it, and so should everyone else", which will ultimately bear more fruit for the Church in the long term. Stability is a very good thing, especially in an institution which, like Delta Tau Chi, has a long tradition of existence. (And which, unlike Delta Tau Chi, also has a commission from the Son of God Himself to evangelize all mankind for their salvation)
A lot of chatter I heard early on was about a possible "AI-encyclical" by Pope Leo. I'm wondering if the "cautious, considered, genuinely consultative, and respectful of existing norms, laws, and structures" approach is in and of itself a kind of rebuke to the AI craze. I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican or the Holy Father himself does speak more directly and in an elaborated way about "Artificial Intelligence" (a large theme to be sure!), but Pope Leo's actions themselves may be a kind of preaching-in-action to watch in the coming months/years. That would be a breath of fresh air in a world (and at times a Church) that has seen pretty drastic changes in the last decade-ish.
The Pope's example on two specific things has spoken powerfully to me in exactly the way you describe: the way he incenses the altar, as if there is nothing else in the world he would rather be doing; and the way he looks in the eyes of almost every baby he blesses. The latter I have looked for in clips for eight months to see if it would wear off - nope. With each baby he moves so that he can look them full in the face because each one is a person. Extremely instructive leadership from him.
I have a great many thoughts about Francis’ legacy - many of them rather negative. Like Pope Leo XIV, I wonder about how effective it is to be open about that, so I’m not usually.
But I think this article points out what has to be his worst quality, which is so glaring there’s no politeness able to be applied: the law, processes (even those he created), and the institutional realities of the Church’s governance meant very little to him. It’s not glamorous, but people need to understand that everyone in ecclesial authority, from your parish’s pastor to the Holy Father, eschew the principles of good governance at their own peril. It always backfires. It never works. It’s a huge reason why the Church at large is so ill-equipped to engage even with its own issues, let alone the issues of the modern world.
If Leo proves himself a good governor, even if we don’t agree with the acts of governance themselves, he will already be significantly more credible than Pope Francis ever was, and that will constitute a massive improvement.
Im so glad you said this, Father! Pope Francis' remarks were often ambiguous which caused much confusion among the laity. Let us all pray for Pope Leo to clear misconceptions and to reinstate TLM in parishes where faith is thriving, especially among young Catholics..
I loved the ideas in the last paragraph. Someday the Francis pontificate will be a blip in church history followed by a stronger, more memorable era in the church through Pope Leo. Time will tell. Meanwhile, living through the daily confusion of Pope Francis's term has been difficult.
Thoughtful analysis. Thanks! I am cautiously encouraged by the initial signs in this pontificate, though I remain very much in "wait and see" mode. Praying for good things--and continuing to insist that justice must be seen to be done.
I suspect most of the College of Cardinals thinks about the Traditional Latin Mass the same way the majority of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity throughout the world do: they really don’t. It’s not important to them. As long as it doesn’t cause headaches one way or the other, they’re fine with it.
There exists a tension between what some of the more ardent supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass have spoken about in the past, and what would most help secure its future. I have no doubt that if Pope Leo put a vote before the College of Cardinals about the TLM, and if the Cardinals were convinced that TLM adherents would continue evangelizing with their form of the Mass while attempting to supplant the Ordinary Form (the Missal of Paul VI), the College would vote to ban the Traditional Mass so fast that all its supporters would receive whiplash.
However, if the Cardinals were convinced that it’s simply an expression for a small group of the faithful to help them grow spiritually, I can’t imagine there being any issue.
So here’s the ironic thing: supporters who have the ears of the College of Cardinals need to downplay, or essentially repudiate, much of the most strident rhetoric issued at the height of Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy. They need to eliminate any language suggesting that the Missal of Paul VI is inherently defective or needs to be reformed, including all that talk about “mutual enrichment.”
Those making the case that the Traditional Latin Mass should be banned need to argue that the Latin Mass is feeding into those sentiments against the Ordinary Form. But those defending the TLM must demonstrate that it isn’t.
The genius of Summorum Pontificum was that it got the TLM in the parishes. It normified, so to speak, the population of TLM supporters. Joe Catholic who disliked bad liturgy but was still perfectly content with a reverent Novus Ordo found the TLM and liked it. But just because they liked the TLM now, it didn't mean they were no longer perfectly content with a reverent Novus Ordo, either.
Now that Traditionis Custodes threw the TLM back out to liturgical Siberia, Joe Catholic doesn't think "well that's just the hobbyhorse of some weirdos," but rather "but why? My friends and I really liked that, what's the big deal?"
If the TLM is just the hobbyhorse of wild-eyed sedes, you're right, it's a goner. And maybe that's how it was in the 80s--I don't know, because I was a Protestant toddler in the 80s. But that certainly isn't how it is in 2026.
I think this is what caused the biggest backlash. If you're an ideologue, the normalization of the EF was exactly what was so intolerable. Everything TC actually did was about making sure everyone understood that the TLM was abnormal and should only be tolerated for as short a period of time as possible. That's why there was an explicit effort to remove it from parish churches and even church bulletins. Get it out of sight of the normies
One of the strongest arguments against the OF is the OF, as celebrated by those who think rubrics are suggestions and tradition is stupid nostalgia.
If the Cardinals think in terms of what has the greatest effect on decreasing those attending the OF, they should be looking at poor catechesis and the lack of Mass attendance among fathers of families, 2 of the foremost causes of people leaving the Church, mainly for Protestantism or some version of "spiritual but not religious". Those who switch to the TLM are quite few in comparison.
Those making the case that the TLM should be allowed to continue should do so on the basis of truth, and not on the basis of what they think will convince Cardinals. That reasoning is spelled out in the Vatican 2 document Orientalis Ecclesiarium: the traditions we have received are valuable and worthy of preservation.
Devin, I don't see how the College of Cardinals, or any other logical thinkers, could possibly believe that TLM adherents are attempting to supplant the Ordinary Form. They simply want the opportunity to worship the way they choose while respecting the rest of us.
That hasn't been my experience - especially in the last few years leading up to TC, I encountered more and more TLM adherents who really were dismissive of the NO - eg. mocking those who attended it, questioning its validity, and preferring to skip Mass on Sunday if they were unable to locate a TLM.
I don't think TC was an effective way of addressing this - it just pushed the extremists to more extremes, and was discouraging+alienating for TLM adherents who would have moderated those extremists - but it did seem like there was at least some real problem at the root to be addressed.
My experience has been similar, Cally, although not quite to that degree. I’m a traditionalist and unfortunately the TLMers do come across as angry and mean. Even toward the traditionally minded who have nothing to do with the decisions being made. It’s understandable that they feel so persecuted but that attitude doesn’t go very far to heal the problem. I’ve even heard a bishop who was trying to appease say “but they’re so mean”.
I think one thing to remember is that discussions about TC and other liturgical matters most emphatically did take place, even if not on the official agenda, just on account of cardinals now meeting with each other. This also applies to other issues.
The official agenda is an attempt to steer discussions, but they know real discussions happened once the meeting was adjourned for the day.
Even if Leo does not change course much from his predecessor, I think it would be a mistake to see him as Francis II. Francis was too much of a disruptor for there to be a "Francis II".
I appreciate that Leo is not rushing into putting his own stamp on everything. I think the best leaders are the ones who, when coming into a new position, wait and listen before beginning to implement their agenda.
I think Leo's deliberateness bodes well for his papacy.
It was work reading this, but well worth it. Your hands will be full with Pope Leo. It’s not the great vibes around Pope Leo that is most apparent, but the strong affirmation that “the darkness will not overcome the Light.” His words alone are pure Gold, an antidote to all things maga, nationalist, fundamentalist, and all their usual suspects. His teachings by extension are an indictment of the “DT haze” that has overcome so many good Catholic souls in this country. Leo’s words and deeds will continue to speak to that. Count on it. 🇺🇸
100% correct. The days of Dolan or Barron telling us that angry, divisive podcaster was akin to St Paul is over. Dolan ‘retired’ and Barron a disappointing finish in USCCB election is proof love and not division is working.
I don't have much of a feel for where Pope Leo wants to take his pontificate, but one thing I'm pretty sure about is he's not the kind of guy who uses a discussion of a consistory as an opportunity to bring up Trump or "maga" as a cudgel to bang over the head of fellow Catholics
I suggest you read Dilexi Te. The Church is tired of politicians using Catholicism to divide us while the poor get poorer. We see polling that shows the vast majority of college educated Catholics view the term ‘MAGA Catholics’ as an oxymoron. With Leo we have an American who is well aware of how awkward it was to have Dolan and Barron as a constant presence on FoxNews. We are divided on purpose by monied interest. The Church is better than this. Join us.
Another great article on the consistory. Especially liked your quote: "..while also entertaining equally totemic figures of the Francis era like Fr. James Martin, SJ.". Will admit, I had to use a dictionary to fully understand your writing. Very well done, you certainly have a command of the english language.
Prediction: Leo will devote much energy to "receiving" the magisterium of his immediate predecessor in a manner that brings it into greater harmony with the broader papal magisterium that preceded him. As he secures this magisterium, he will build his own contributions on top of this -- but not before: you don't start building on a foundation before your shore up its structural problems.
This being the case, we should see very few clear reversals of Francis' decisions, especially in proportion to how long they've had to "crystallize." Rather, what preceded Leo will be contextualized, constrained, and guided along more fruitful paths.
Lest this be interpreted as directed against Pope Francis in particular, I say that what I've described above is the task of any Pope, or any leader of any stripe. So I suppose I'm saying "Leo will be a Pope, just like the other Popes who were Popes before him." 😂
"Hagan lío"--all right, but after the mess has been made, it's time to clean up. Perhaps seeing the mess-making and the cleaning-up as complementary is our way to appreciate the best of Francis' papacy, even as we stabilize with our new Pope. From "lío" to Leo, perhaps.
Isn't two days a horribly short time? What can a hundred-odd oldish men dressed in formal togs sitting in uncomfortable folding chairs at big round metal tables accomplish in two days?
So, Ed, you would interpret the lack of discussion about the liturgy as a sign that they likely have already come to a consensus to dismantle Traditionis Custodes? I was worried that the lack of discussion was simply the cardinals choosing to avoid a controversial topic in need of concrete solutions in favor of less controversial topics that lend themselves to far less concrete statements. In other words, I think it's a lot easier to get away with vague statements like, "We need to evangelize," or "Synodality is good," than it would be to make a similarly vague statement like, "The liturgy is important."
Am I being too cynical?
I hope you are right about TC, but I’m not that optimistic.
If anything, I think they want to avoid anything controversial and we are going to be stuck with TC for a while.
My read of it was that liturgy was too big of an issue to tackle in the limited time they had, and that the Holy Father just wants to get back into the habit of having any consultative meetings to begin with. Liturgy deserves a longer and more careful process of dealing with than they could likely tackle in two days, because we're not just talking about the status quo of the last 5-6 years or even going back to the days of Pope Benedict, it's a much longer and more complicated situation that needs to be addressed well.
I think it would be a mistake for Pope Leo to waltz in and make huge liturgical changes overnight, and he's wise to move deliberately and reflectively on anything to do with the liturgical question.
People forget that even Pope Benedict, who had spent decades in the Curia, likely quietly arguing in favor of more "liberal" permissions for the old rite during most of his tenure, waited two years to publish Summorum Pontificum. And Francis, probably conscious of Benedict's continued presence, waited eight years before publishing Traditionis Custodes.
There's no rush to "fix" the divide. Right now there are some deeply entrenched ideologues on both sides of the issue who have at times acted intolerably and dismissively of anyone they perceive as "not on the right side of the issue," but the fact remains that most Church leaders are either indifferent to some of "the fuss" over the liturgy or have preferences but don't see the need to make a wedge out of it.
It seems inevitable that at some point, say, fifty years from now, there will be broad permissions for people to celebrate at least some modified version of the TLM and a large contingent of Catholics will avail themselves of that option. I suspect the main question for Leo is how to thread the needle in the interim, and it's prudent to move organically and get people's buy-in rather than feeding into some culture war dynamic.
The immediate problem is that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Catholics have been exiled.
Yeah. Putting it off also gives them some time to dip their toes into the topic more gradually, and to feel each other out on a controversial topic, since it's not like the topic was banned from discussion.
That’s fair, but can we get un-kicked out of our parishes in the meantime?
Ryan, many of my family are in the Charlotte Diocese and I am mindful of the pain these faithful Catholics are enduring under Bishop Martin's lack of concern for his flock.
It can't be ignored that Francis appointed a ton of Cardinals who were as ideological on liturgy as he was. These isn't BXVI's or even JPII's college. I'm not sure we would land on a just resolution if Leo rushed it with the current college
I'm increasingly convinced that how you do something matters nearly as much as what you do, because how you do something, especially in a position of authority, communicates a lot about how you actually regard norms, laws, and your own power. Ironically, Pope Francis seemed to take a very absolutist approach to his office, freely dispensing with his own laws when it suited him, or arrogating power to himself and his curia that seemingly belonged to diocesan bishops or even pastors (eg, the infamous "no TLM times in the parish bulletin" directive from the DDW). This made it hard to take his reforming efforts and statements about synodality seriously, because his own actions seemed to undercut his words. In fairness to our late pontiff, I do think he was sincere in his statements and genuinely desired to make improvements through his actions as pope—but I also think he was prickly, emotionally driven, prone to favoritism, inconsistent, and very bad at speaking off-the-cuff.
My hope for Pope Leo is that he continues to operate in the manner he's shown so far: cautious, considered, genuinely consultative, and respectful of existing norms, laws, and structures. While this likely won't bring change to some hot-button issues as fast as many people would like, I think that this approach communicates an attitude of "the law exists, and the Pope follows it, and so should everyone else", which will ultimately bear more fruit for the Church in the long term. Stability is a very good thing, especially in an institution which, like Delta Tau Chi, has a long tradition of existence. (And which, unlike Delta Tau Chi, also has a commission from the Son of God Himself to evangelize all mankind for their salvation)
A lot of chatter I heard early on was about a possible "AI-encyclical" by Pope Leo. I'm wondering if the "cautious, considered, genuinely consultative, and respectful of existing norms, laws, and structures" approach is in and of itself a kind of rebuke to the AI craze. I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican or the Holy Father himself does speak more directly and in an elaborated way about "Artificial Intelligence" (a large theme to be sure!), but Pope Leo's actions themselves may be a kind of preaching-in-action to watch in the coming months/years. That would be a breath of fresh air in a world (and at times a Church) that has seen pretty drastic changes in the last decade-ish.
The Pope's example on two specific things has spoken powerfully to me in exactly the way you describe: the way he incenses the altar, as if there is nothing else in the world he would rather be doing; and the way he looks in the eyes of almost every baby he blesses. The latter I have looked for in clips for eight months to see if it would wear off - nope. With each baby he moves so that he can look them full in the face because each one is a person. Extremely instructive leadership from him.
// This made it hard to take his reforming efforts and statements about synodality seriously, because his own actions seemed to undercut his words. //
Touché.
VERY well said!
I have a great many thoughts about Francis’ legacy - many of them rather negative. Like Pope Leo XIV, I wonder about how effective it is to be open about that, so I’m not usually.
But I think this article points out what has to be his worst quality, which is so glaring there’s no politeness able to be applied: the law, processes (even those he created), and the institutional realities of the Church’s governance meant very little to him. It’s not glamorous, but people need to understand that everyone in ecclesial authority, from your parish’s pastor to the Holy Father, eschew the principles of good governance at their own peril. It always backfires. It never works. It’s a huge reason why the Church at large is so ill-equipped to engage even with its own issues, let alone the issues of the modern world.
If Leo proves himself a good governor, even if we don’t agree with the acts of governance themselves, he will already be significantly more credible than Pope Francis ever was, and that will constitute a massive improvement.
Im so glad you said this, Father! Pope Francis' remarks were often ambiguous which caused much confusion among the laity. Let us all pray for Pope Leo to clear misconceptions and to reinstate TLM in parishes where faith is thriving, especially among young Catholics..
This is a sensitive and closely read analysis, and that last paragraph is a real kicker.
I loved the ideas in the last paragraph. Someday the Francis pontificate will be a blip in church history followed by a stronger, more memorable era in the church through Pope Leo. Time will tell. Meanwhile, living through the daily confusion of Pope Francis's term has been difficult.
I hung onto all of that article, probably the best since I subscribed to The Pillar!!!
Thoughtful analysis. Thanks! I am cautiously encouraged by the initial signs in this pontificate, though I remain very much in "wait and see" mode. Praying for good things--and continuing to insist that justice must be seen to be done.
I suspect most of the College of Cardinals thinks about the Traditional Latin Mass the same way the majority of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity throughout the world do: they really don’t. It’s not important to them. As long as it doesn’t cause headaches one way or the other, they’re fine with it.
There exists a tension between what some of the more ardent supporters of the Traditional Latin Mass have spoken about in the past, and what would most help secure its future. I have no doubt that if Pope Leo put a vote before the College of Cardinals about the TLM, and if the Cardinals were convinced that TLM adherents would continue evangelizing with their form of the Mass while attempting to supplant the Ordinary Form (the Missal of Paul VI), the College would vote to ban the Traditional Mass so fast that all its supporters would receive whiplash.
However, if the Cardinals were convinced that it’s simply an expression for a small group of the faithful to help them grow spiritually, I can’t imagine there being any issue.
So here’s the ironic thing: supporters who have the ears of the College of Cardinals need to downplay, or essentially repudiate, much of the most strident rhetoric issued at the height of Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy. They need to eliminate any language suggesting that the Missal of Paul VI is inherently defective or needs to be reformed, including all that talk about “mutual enrichment.”
Those making the case that the Traditional Latin Mass should be banned need to argue that the Latin Mass is feeding into those sentiments against the Ordinary Form. But those defending the TLM must demonstrate that it isn’t.
The genius of Summorum Pontificum was that it got the TLM in the parishes. It normified, so to speak, the population of TLM supporters. Joe Catholic who disliked bad liturgy but was still perfectly content with a reverent Novus Ordo found the TLM and liked it. But just because they liked the TLM now, it didn't mean they were no longer perfectly content with a reverent Novus Ordo, either.
Now that Traditionis Custodes threw the TLM back out to liturgical Siberia, Joe Catholic doesn't think "well that's just the hobbyhorse of some weirdos," but rather "but why? My friends and I really liked that, what's the big deal?"
If the TLM is just the hobbyhorse of wild-eyed sedes, you're right, it's a goner. And maybe that's how it was in the 80s--I don't know, because I was a Protestant toddler in the 80s. But that certainly isn't how it is in 2026.
I think this is what caused the biggest backlash. If you're an ideologue, the normalization of the EF was exactly what was so intolerable. Everything TC actually did was about making sure everyone understood that the TLM was abnormal and should only be tolerated for as short a period of time as possible. That's why there was an explicit effort to remove it from parish churches and even church bulletins. Get it out of sight of the normies
One of the strongest arguments against the OF is the OF, as celebrated by those who think rubrics are suggestions and tradition is stupid nostalgia.
If the Cardinals think in terms of what has the greatest effect on decreasing those attending the OF, they should be looking at poor catechesis and the lack of Mass attendance among fathers of families, 2 of the foremost causes of people leaving the Church, mainly for Protestantism or some version of "spiritual but not religious". Those who switch to the TLM are quite few in comparison.
Those making the case that the TLM should be allowed to continue should do so on the basis of truth, and not on the basis of what they think will convince Cardinals. That reasoning is spelled out in the Vatican 2 document Orientalis Ecclesiarium: the traditions we have received are valuable and worthy of preservation.
I can’t imagine hating fellow Catholics like you do.
I suspect you're assuming the cardinals think exactly like you do
Devin, I don't see how the College of Cardinals, or any other logical thinkers, could possibly believe that TLM adherents are attempting to supplant the Ordinary Form. They simply want the opportunity to worship the way they choose while respecting the rest of us.
That hasn't been my experience - especially in the last few years leading up to TC, I encountered more and more TLM adherents who really were dismissive of the NO - eg. mocking those who attended it, questioning its validity, and preferring to skip Mass on Sunday if they were unable to locate a TLM.
I don't think TC was an effective way of addressing this - it just pushed the extremists to more extremes, and was discouraging+alienating for TLM adherents who would have moderated those extremists - but it did seem like there was at least some real problem at the root to be addressed.
My experience has been similar, Cally, although not quite to that degree. I’m a traditionalist and unfortunately the TLMers do come across as angry and mean. Even toward the traditionally minded who have nothing to do with the decisions being made. It’s understandable that they feel so persecuted but that attitude doesn’t go very far to heal the problem. I’ve even heard a bishop who was trying to appease say “but they’re so mean”.
I think one thing to remember is that discussions about TC and other liturgical matters most emphatically did take place, even if not on the official agenda, just on account of cardinals now meeting with each other. This also applies to other issues.
The official agenda is an attempt to steer discussions, but they know real discussions happened once the meeting was adjourned for the day.
(a tagline for Pillar live shows) The real consistory is the bars we meet in along the way.
This is a really important point
Even if Leo does not change course much from his predecessor, I think it would be a mistake to see him as Francis II. Francis was too much of a disruptor for there to be a "Francis II".
I appreciate that Leo is not rushing into putting his own stamp on everything. I think the best leaders are the ones who, when coming into a new position, wait and listen before beginning to implement their agenda.
I think Leo's deliberateness bodes well for his papacy.
It was work reading this, but well worth it. Your hands will be full with Pope Leo. It’s not the great vibes around Pope Leo that is most apparent, but the strong affirmation that “the darkness will not overcome the Light.” His words alone are pure Gold, an antidote to all things maga, nationalist, fundamentalist, and all their usual suspects. His teachings by extension are an indictment of the “DT haze” that has overcome so many good Catholic souls in this country. Leo’s words and deeds will continue to speak to that. Count on it. 🇺🇸
100% correct. The days of Dolan or Barron telling us that angry, divisive podcaster was akin to St Paul is over. Dolan ‘retired’ and Barron a disappointing finish in USCCB election is proof love and not division is working.
Sigh...
I don't have much of a feel for where Pope Leo wants to take his pontificate, but one thing I'm pretty sure about is he's not the kind of guy who uses a discussion of a consistory as an opportunity to bring up Trump or "maga" as a cudgel to bang over the head of fellow Catholics
I suggest you read Dilexi Te. The Church is tired of politicians using Catholicism to divide us while the poor get poorer. We see polling that shows the vast majority of college educated Catholics view the term ‘MAGA Catholics’ as an oxymoron. With Leo we have an American who is well aware of how awkward it was to have Dolan and Barron as a constant presence on FoxNews. We are divided on purpose by monied interest. The Church is better than this. Join us.
I see and respect your point. However, I am banging it over their hearts, not their heads.
Let's please try not to bring politics in to these discussions.🥴
Another great article on the consistory. Especially liked your quote: "..while also entertaining equally totemic figures of the Francis era like Fr. James Martin, SJ.". Will admit, I had to use a dictionary to fully understand your writing. Very well done, you certainly have a command of the english language.
Jon,I frequently have to check definitions. Many of the abbreviations are foreign to me, a convert.
Prediction: Leo will devote much energy to "receiving" the magisterium of his immediate predecessor in a manner that brings it into greater harmony with the broader papal magisterium that preceded him. As he secures this magisterium, he will build his own contributions on top of this -- but not before: you don't start building on a foundation before your shore up its structural problems.
This being the case, we should see very few clear reversals of Francis' decisions, especially in proportion to how long they've had to "crystallize." Rather, what preceded Leo will be contextualized, constrained, and guided along more fruitful paths.
Lest this be interpreted as directed against Pope Francis in particular, I say that what I've described above is the task of any Pope, or any leader of any stripe. So I suppose I'm saying "Leo will be a Pope, just like the other Popes who were Popes before him." 😂
"Hagan lío"--all right, but after the mess has been made, it's time to clean up. Perhaps seeing the mess-making and the cleaning-up as complementary is our way to appreciate the best of Francis' papacy, even as we stabilize with our new Pope. From "lío" to Leo, perhaps.
Isn't two days a horribly short time? What can a hundred-odd oldish men dressed in formal togs sitting in uncomfortable folding chairs at big round metal tables accomplish in two days?