Yes, but in what form. The last few popes have appeared to pay at least lip service to the former pope's pet projects, but to different extents have actually embraced them.
I predict, on the basis on nothing at all, that it will be like that time Disney flushed the entire Star Wars Extended Universe down the thing that flushes. I will bet 1 dozen Dunkin Donuts (vanilla frosted with sprinkles which is my sons' preferred flavor.)
I gotta be honest - just the word synodality drives me insane. It always seems like inside baseball gibberish that 99% of Catholics don't know the meaning of or care about. Enough about synodality, more about Jesus from our Church leaders.
I thought he spoke Italian well, and, of course, Spanish. I was very happy that he referred to today's Marian feast, Our Lady of Pompeii, important in Italy.
Yes, of course you're right. I think my knee-jerk dislike of what I saw and felt watching his face and listening to his voice as he stumbled through his text was almost entirely emotional, but I don't apologize for saying it. It seems to me that we in the western world, especially, have become largely unable to think without leaning excessively on words. We need words, of course, but thinking rightly precedes them.
I remember that, last time they didn't recognise the Our Father. It's mad they can't find a translator for Italian who has a basic familiarity with Catholic prayers.
The sort of people who run the BBC seem to be the sort who regard Christianity as beneath contempt. If that's true - I don't watch it, only read about it from time to time - they believe it merits disrespect.
They certainly treat it with disrespect. Their coverage of Pope Benedict's too trip to the UK was terrible and their entrainment wing uses the faith as a punching bag (they tried to run a cartoon called Popetown and have made videos for their social media wing mocking the Eucharist).
You'd think they would just have a printed out translation for the Hail Mary and the apostolic blessing. It's not really a surprise that it's coming. Even ETWN was translating the apostolic blessing on the spot.
I particularly enjoyed listening to the World Service only for them to cut off before he gave his Urbi et Orbi blessing to go to the news. Switch to Radio 4 and they’re interviewing someone about VE Day 80, switch to 5 Live and they have also cut away from the Pope to witter on about how he’s following in Francis’ footsteps.
I don't think that one can expect the BBC to show respect for or even understanding of what they're covering when for them it's only today's entertainment.
It's the BBC. They made it a policy that no Catholics would be part of the team covering Pope Benedict's trip to the UK. Ultimately, the arbiters of British-ness are committed to maintaining anti-Catholicism as a Pillar of their identity...it's just dressed up as secularism now rather than "no popery" sectarianism.
Doublespeak has become normal, acceptable, unquestionable. Few bother to speak clearly because everyone understands that under the modern dispensation words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Clarifying, therefore, would be distorting. Prevost can get away with fuzzy language because it will all mean exactly what he wants it to mean. It's where we are as a rapidly disintegrating culture. Habemus papam novum, eundem papam antiquum.
Ugh, such a downer. I'm sorry you're yoked to such pessimism. I know things are rough--we didn't choose the horrible state of the world and society obviously, and we have very, very little power over it--but at least we have power over our own dispositions and gosh, I'd hope that my inside weren't as dark as the outside world. Why match its bleakness?
Except for my final two sentences, which I agree are pessimistic, wouldn't you say that the rest is simply describing where we are as a culture? We no longer value clarity in discourse highly because clarity means taking stands. Ours is decidedly a culture of relativism, in which truth has been replaced by "truths". Taking stands is seen as radical, as unsophisticated, even as bad taste.
I would say there there are truths in the rest of what you say, but that the framing is inaccurate, as is the degree to which you ascribe power to those negative attributes in society. Here are my honest thoughts:
"Doublespeak has become normal, acceptable, unquestionable." -- Normal in some contexts? Yes. I think doublespeak has become normalized in corporate, journalistic, academic, and public-speaking spheres, but not in the actual lived experience of 99% of people. Acceptable? I don't think so. Sure, we can't avoid it and it has a lot of power, but doublespeak is criticized, lampooned, and satirized all over; that betells that it is not yet acceptable. And unquestionable? Absolutely not. There's a lot to be upset about in our current situation, but the populist political movements all over the US and Europe are actively resisting doublespeak.
"Few bother to speak clearly because everyone understands that under the modern dispensation words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.""-- Many don't bother, it's true. But a great many do! We are not conditioned right now to hear or notice those who try to be clear, and often they are mocked or de-platformed for it. But they're out there. Many of them are. I interact with them every day in my life.
"We no longer value clarity in discourse highly because clarity means taking stands." -- There's a couple claims here. Claim #1 is that we don't value clarity. Claim #2 is that we don't take stands. There is some element of truth to this that I agree with--constructivist relativism has certainly eroded away at clarity as a social value, and has made it very difficult to be effective in stating the truth because people can just sort of magic-wand it away by talking about 'personal truths'. BUT the fact that you and I are having this conversation means that an element of society does value clarity. And I think you can see that across the board! Think about the right-wing populism demanding straightforward speech and simplified and clear policy and communication; think about left-wing activism trying to root out systemic and well-disguised influences of racism and bigotry; think even about in the high art world how so much art now seeks to represent reality starkly and painfully as it is (even if one may not like the style).
"Ours is decidedly a culture of relativism, in which truth has been replaced by "truths"." -- This I largely agree with. It is a great tragedy of our time, but not one that is hopeless. Again, there is a great amount of resistance to this in western society. Think about how the pendulum is beginning to swing against the relativist roots of gender ideology, especially in Europe. The UK just constitutionally ruled that the definition of a 'woman' is biological, for example. 'Gender-altering' surgeries are banned in numerous countries for minors. Young men are seeking organized religion--especially Catholicism and Islam, two very doctrinal and un-relativist traditions--in droves. Relativism is starting to crack.
"Prevost can get away with fuzzy language because it will all mean exactly what he wants it to mean." -- This just strikes me as an unjust personal attack on the pope based on assuming the worst. I don't think there are grounds for this characterization, and it strikes me as being in bad faith. Maybe you're right and he'll lazily use unclarity as smokescreen the way Francis was wont to do. I'm absolutely not willing to make that assumption though, especially when my only data is a single blessing. If for no other reason, I won't assume the worst because assuming the worst is bad for the soul. Disciples who assumed the worst believed that Jesus would never rise.
I will add that I appreciate that we can have this conversation without devolving into barbarism like the comment boards in the rest of the internet. It shows integrity.
I am more than willing to give Pope Leo XIV a chance. It sounds like he just played Francis' greatest hits in his first speech, but he also carried himself better than Francis did, so overall I think he's off to a better start (which isn't saying much, but credit where credit's due). I admit that I am leery about this pick for multiple reasons, but I think he can be an upgrade from Francis in some ways while having other similar problems (doctrinal questions and "synodality" are still a big question mark). I am comfortably neutral on him for now, but my opinion may shift rapidly.
He doesn’t seem like someone who will make it so much about himself as Francis did (as JD and Ed discussed on the podcast). Will he make it all about Francis, though? In any case, as noted above, seemingly synodality lives loudly within him.
That he wore the traditional vestments and chose a name that 13 popes had assumed before him may show he's not given to ostentatious humility. That would be a refreshing change. May God strengthen him.
I went to summer school at IIT in 1970 and we weren't allowed to go anywhere in the neighborhood alone, including Comiskey Park, because it was too dangerous.
I went to Lincoln-Way, diocese of Joliet. I’m a Cubs fan and my brother is a Sox fan. It absolutely depends on who taught you baseball. But one thing’s for sure, you have to pick a side
From what I've read... His mom was a Cubs fan, his dad was a Cards fan... He, Pope Leo, a "Sahx" fan (my grandfather had a small ticket plan to Komiskey). The Pope is from my place of birth (but I'm a Cards fan; grew up in STL). Hilarious we're discussing His Holiness's rooting interests in sports... just so cool & absolutely surrreal. Sorry, Ed... he's not a Cubbie.
Media reports have said Cubs fan, but I’ve yet to read how deeply he cares about it. I live in Arlington, Virginia, where there is no doubt that Bishop Burbidge is an avid Eagles fan.
For years now I have prayed for the successor to Pope Francis, not knowing his name. Now I do. God bless Pope Leo XIV. I will continue to pray for him as he begins his time as the Roman Pontiff.
I am similarly surprised. One commentator I read many years ago said that an American would never be elected Pope because of the US dominance in so many fields. But "never" is a long time. Perhaps the relative rise of China and other countries has lessened anxieties among the Cardinals.
He was not my choice (not that I had any say). But through either the active or the passive will of God, Cardinal Prevost is now Pope Leo XIV. May God grant him many joyful years to lead the Church in Truth & Charity.
Relatively young, has experience in several continents, speaks five languages (reads in two other), degrees in Mathematics, Theology, Canon Law, and great papal name. God bless the Pope!
I definitely called the name Leo XIV earlier this week. Ha!
As a resident of a diocese with a soon to retire bishop on the conservative end of the spectrum, and mother to a seminarian who will be asked to vow obedience to our next bishop, this pick does make me nervous for my local Church.
But at least he wore the mozzetta, which gives him points over his predecessor in my eyes.
Curious if synodality will live on in this pontificate
Given that he made a point of mentioning synodality in his remarks I would say so.
Yes, but in what form. The last few popes have appeared to pay at least lip service to the former pope's pet projects, but to different extents have actually embraced them.
This is the real question.
I predict, on the basis on nothing at all, that it will be like that time Disney flushed the entire Star Wars Extended Universe down the thing that flushes. I will bet 1 dozen Dunkin Donuts (vanilla frosted with sprinkles which is my sons' preferred flavor.)
I don't like synodality. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere.
I gotta be honest - just the word synodality drives me insane. It always seems like inside baseball gibberish that 99% of Catholics don't know the meaning of or care about. Enough about synodality, more about Jesus from our Church leaders.
Seriously, I'm pretty attentive to goings on in the Church and I still don't feel like I know what it even means.
I, sincerely, hope not.
Translation errors won’t be a problem.
I am glad for this too!
You put far too much faith in the Vatican Comms Dept to NOT find ways to screw things up.
The BBC had a translator who sounded like he had only just started learning Italian, and who didn’t know the Hail Mary. They did the same last time.
🤯
Oh, and he called the patron of his order Saint Augustus. Only the BBC.
I listened in Italian. Alas, it's not a language I know, but it was clear that he didn't know it very well, either.
I thought he spoke Italian well, and, of course, Spanish. I was very happy that he referred to today's Marian feast, Our Lady of Pompeii, important in Italy.
I don't speak Italian at all, and I could 90% follow him; I assumed he was speaking with noticeably american english pronunciation
Yep. For me, that grated. Different strokes.
I’m fluent in Italian and I can vouch that his Italian is actually quite good. He lived there for over fifteen years after all.
Then why did he stumble?
Probably because he was just elected pope.
I stumble in English literally all the time and I'm fluent. Are you a perfect speaker? If so, you're a cut above the rest of us I guess.
He’s not a native
Yes, of course you're right. I think my knee-jerk dislike of what I saw and felt watching his face and listening to his voice as he stumbled through his text was almost entirely emotional, but I don't apologize for saying it. It seems to me that we in the western world, especially, have become largely unable to think without leaning excessively on words. We need words, of course, but thinking rightly precedes them.
I remember that, last time they didn't recognise the Our Father. It's mad they can't find a translator for Italian who has a basic familiarity with Catholic prayers.
The sort of people who run the BBC seem to be the sort who regard Christianity as beneath contempt. If that's true - I don't watch it, only read about it from time to time - they believe it merits disrespect.
They certainly treat it with disrespect. Their coverage of Pope Benedict's too trip to the UK was terrible and their entrainment wing uses the faith as a punching bag (they tried to run a cartoon called Popetown and have made videos for their social media wing mocking the Eucharist).
You'd think they would just have a printed out translation for the Hail Mary and the apostolic blessing. It's not really a surprise that it's coming. Even ETWN was translating the apostolic blessing on the spot.
I particularly enjoyed listening to the World Service only for them to cut off before he gave his Urbi et Orbi blessing to go to the news. Switch to Radio 4 and they’re interviewing someone about VE Day 80, switch to 5 Live and they have also cut away from the Pope to witter on about how he’s following in Francis’ footsteps.
I just wanted to hear the blessing 🥲
EWTN covered everything, fortunately.
I don't think that one can expect the BBC to show respect for or even understanding of what they're covering when for them it's only today's entertainment.
It's the BBC. They made it a policy that no Catholics would be part of the team covering Pope Benedict's trip to the UK. Ultimately, the arbiters of British-ness are committed to maintaining anti-Catholicism as a Pillar of their identity...it's just dressed up as secularism now rather than "no popery" sectarianism.
Having a native English speaker will be nice, at least.
Why?
Because American is God's preferred language.
As an advocate of the King James Version allegedly said: "If it's good enough for Moses and the Apostles, it's good enough for me!"
Listen to Francis' address to Congress. It was... rough.
Because doublespeak will be harder to disavow.
Doublespeak has become normal, acceptable, unquestionable. Few bother to speak clearly because everyone understands that under the modern dispensation words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Clarifying, therefore, would be distorting. Prevost can get away with fuzzy language because it will all mean exactly what he wants it to mean. It's where we are as a rapidly disintegrating culture. Habemus papam novum, eundem papam antiquum.
Ugh, such a downer. I'm sorry you're yoked to such pessimism. I know things are rough--we didn't choose the horrible state of the world and society obviously, and we have very, very little power over it--but at least we have power over our own dispositions and gosh, I'd hope that my inside weren't as dark as the outside world. Why match its bleakness?
Except for my final two sentences, which I agree are pessimistic, wouldn't you say that the rest is simply describing where we are as a culture? We no longer value clarity in discourse highly because clarity means taking stands. Ours is decidedly a culture of relativism, in which truth has been replaced by "truths". Taking stands is seen as radical, as unsophisticated, even as bad taste.
I would say there there are truths in the rest of what you say, but that the framing is inaccurate, as is the degree to which you ascribe power to those negative attributes in society. Here are my honest thoughts:
"Doublespeak has become normal, acceptable, unquestionable." -- Normal in some contexts? Yes. I think doublespeak has become normalized in corporate, journalistic, academic, and public-speaking spheres, but not in the actual lived experience of 99% of people. Acceptable? I don't think so. Sure, we can't avoid it and it has a lot of power, but doublespeak is criticized, lampooned, and satirized all over; that betells that it is not yet acceptable. And unquestionable? Absolutely not. There's a lot to be upset about in our current situation, but the populist political movements all over the US and Europe are actively resisting doublespeak.
"Few bother to speak clearly because everyone understands that under the modern dispensation words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.""-- Many don't bother, it's true. But a great many do! We are not conditioned right now to hear or notice those who try to be clear, and often they are mocked or de-platformed for it. But they're out there. Many of them are. I interact with them every day in my life.
"We no longer value clarity in discourse highly because clarity means taking stands." -- There's a couple claims here. Claim #1 is that we don't value clarity. Claim #2 is that we don't take stands. There is some element of truth to this that I agree with--constructivist relativism has certainly eroded away at clarity as a social value, and has made it very difficult to be effective in stating the truth because people can just sort of magic-wand it away by talking about 'personal truths'. BUT the fact that you and I are having this conversation means that an element of society does value clarity. And I think you can see that across the board! Think about the right-wing populism demanding straightforward speech and simplified and clear policy and communication; think about left-wing activism trying to root out systemic and well-disguised influences of racism and bigotry; think even about in the high art world how so much art now seeks to represent reality starkly and painfully as it is (even if one may not like the style).
"Ours is decidedly a culture of relativism, in which truth has been replaced by "truths"." -- This I largely agree with. It is a great tragedy of our time, but not one that is hopeless. Again, there is a great amount of resistance to this in western society. Think about how the pendulum is beginning to swing against the relativist roots of gender ideology, especially in Europe. The UK just constitutionally ruled that the definition of a 'woman' is biological, for example. 'Gender-altering' surgeries are banned in numerous countries for minors. Young men are seeking organized religion--especially Catholicism and Islam, two very doctrinal and un-relativist traditions--in droves. Relativism is starting to crack.
"Prevost can get away with fuzzy language because it will all mean exactly what he wants it to mean." -- This just strikes me as an unjust personal attack on the pope based on assuming the worst. I don't think there are grounds for this characterization, and it strikes me as being in bad faith. Maybe you're right and he'll lazily use unclarity as smokescreen the way Francis was wont to do. I'm absolutely not willing to make that assumption though, especially when my only data is a single blessing. If for no other reason, I won't assume the worst because assuming the worst is bad for the soul. Disciples who assumed the worst believed that Jesus would never rise.
I will add that I appreciate that we can have this conversation without devolving into barbarism like the comment boards in the rest of the internet. It shows integrity.
I am more than willing to give Pope Leo XIV a chance. It sounds like he just played Francis' greatest hits in his first speech, but he also carried himself better than Francis did, so overall I think he's off to a better start (which isn't saying much, but credit where credit's due). I admit that I am leery about this pick for multiple reasons, but I think he can be an upgrade from Francis in some ways while having other similar problems (doctrinal questions and "synodality" are still a big question mark). I am comfortably neutral on him for now, but my opinion may shift rapidly.
He doesn’t seem like someone who will make it so much about himself as Francis did (as JD and Ed discussed on the podcast). Will he make it all about Francis, though? In any case, as noted above, seemingly synodality lives loudly within him.
Actual synodality would be fine. Going back to Vatican I but calling it synodality was kind of weird and maybe we can move past that.
That he wore the traditional vestments and chose a name that 13 popes had assumed before him may show he's not given to ostentatious humility. That would be a refreshing change. May God strengthen him.
This was my thought exactly. His first impression seems to be one of reserve, which makes me hopeful.
Cubs or Sox fan?
Sure hope he's a Cubs fan
So he truly understands suffering? 😂
From an Expos fan 🪦
Also an Expos fan!
Someone on TV said he is a Cubs fan. But he grew up on the southside in the 1960s which would make him much more likely to be Sox fan.
I am a southwest side Cub fan but I grew up in the 1970s/80s
I went to summer school at IIT in 1970 and we weren't allowed to go anywhere in the neighborhood alone, including Comiskey Park, because it was too dangerous.
I grew up on the south side, and though the majority were Sox fans, there were certainly enough Cubs fans around, too. So anything is possible!
My father in law grew up in the SW corner of Chicago proper and is a Cubs fan nonetheless.
I went to Lincoln-Way, diocese of Joliet. I’m a Cubs fan and my brother is a Sox fan. It absolutely depends on who taught you baseball. But one thing’s for sure, you have to pick a side
He's from the South Side, but there are traitors there sometimes.
Cardinals.
Likewise.
This is one of those times when we need a downvote button!
Nah... Viva El Birdos!!! 😊
From what I've read... His mom was a Cubs fan, his dad was a Cards fan... He, Pope Leo, a "Sahx" fan (my grandfather had a small ticket plan to Komiskey). The Pope is from my place of birth (but I'm a Cards fan; grew up in STL). Hilarious we're discussing His Holiness's rooting interests in sports... just so cool & absolutely surrreal. Sorry, Ed... he's not a Cubbie.
Grew up in western Kentucky. There the west is Cardinals and the east is Reds.
Media reports have said Cubs fan, but I’ve yet to read how deeply he cares about it. I live in Arlington, Virginia, where there is no doubt that Bishop Burbidge is an avid Eagles fan.
Update: WGN in Chicago has his brother saying he is a White Sox fan. This controversy will consume several news cycles, I am sure. https://x.com/DanaRebikWGN/status/1920570337663832273
A Chicago TV station tracked down the new pope’s brother, who stated that Leo XIV was a White Sox fan. https://wgntv.com/news/pope-leo/robert-prevost-pope-leo-xiv-chicago-cubs-sox/
And I really need a Papal verdict on my beloved Bears.
Apparently his brother says he is a White Sox fan, which means he is a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
For years now I have prayed for the successor to Pope Francis, not knowing his name. Now I do. God bless Pope Leo XIV. I will continue to pray for him as he begins his time as the Roman Pontiff.
Observation 1, let's not jump to assumption he's calling back to Leo XIII.
Observation 2, clearly the cardinal electors were willing to go young.
Observation 3, he opted not to use English but did use Spanish for Diocese of Chiclayo.
Why Whats up with LXIII
I’m hoping pillar does a write up on Leos for us
Wait that’s Rerum Novarum snd St Michael prayer ? I love that guy! That is very encouraging!
I think AJ means there are 12 other Leos who he could be calling back to
I think it’s fairly clear it would be Leo XIII, the author of Rerum Novarum.
Guys, you got your canon lawyer!
Thank goodness he is not a German. I am amazed that an American would be elected Pope.
I am similarly surprised. One commentator I read many years ago said that an American would never be elected Pope because of the US dominance in so many fields. But "never" is a long time. Perhaps the relative rise of China and other countries has lessened anxieties among the Cardinals.
I'm relieved it's not Tagle, Turk son (spellcheck insists on Turkmenistan), or anyone in the McCarrick mafia.
This might be somewhat explained by him being a Hispanic American who spent most of his priesthood and bishopric in Peru, and a decade or so in Italy.
Just read an article thst a Cardinal did said That he is the least American of the Americans 😁
He was not my choice (not that I had any say). But through either the active or the passive will of God, Cardinal Prevost is now Pope Leo XIV. May God grant him many joyful years to lead the Church in Truth & Charity.
Relatively young, has experience in several continents, speaks five languages (reads in two other), degrees in Mathematics, Theology, Canon Law, and great papal name. God bless the Pope!
and he studied at the angelicum
My husband is overjoyed to have a Math Pope.
Same!
I definitely called the name Leo XIV earlier this week. Ha!
As a resident of a diocese with a soon to retire bishop on the conservative end of the spectrum, and mother to a seminarian who will be asked to vow obedience to our next bishop, this pick does make me nervous for my local Church.
But at least he wore the mozzetta, which gives him points over his predecessor in my eyes.
God bless your son in his studies and his future ministry!
Thank you. Our priests and seminarians long for the prayers of the laity A LOT more than I realized before I was this close to it.
I will remember to pray especially for them. My late father taught in seminary for many years.
A canonist!
Maybe he could pray for the Bears
I'm hoping he continues the the same vein as his predecessor. The joy of (Jordan) Love
I thought praying with heretics was a damnable offense?
Saint Vince Lombardi, ora pro nobis!
Congratulations to Ed who wrote yesterday "My gut says Prevost or Tagle are both still serious potential popes over the next 72 hours."
or I should say, to Ed's gut
"Thrice blest is he to whom is given
the instinct that can tell
that God is on the field, when He
is most invisible."
-Frederick W. Faber, The Will of God