Pope Leo XIV's election signals a desire for continuity with Pope Benedict XVI's emphasis on tradition and reform within the Church, while also acknowledging the legacy of Pope Francis. His choice of name, opting to honor Pope Leo XIII, and his early addresses suggest a focus on building upon past teachings, particularly in addressing social issues and the challenges of the modern world.
While Pope Leo XIV is seen as building on the work of his predecessors, this does not mean a simple return to the past. His approach is described as a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity," meaning that he seeks to move forward while remaining rooted in tradition. This involves acknowledging the contributions of both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI, and finding ways to integrate them into the ongoing development of the Church.
Here's a more detailed look at the points of continuity and change:
- Pope Leo XIV's decision to take the name Leo, echoing Pope Leo XIII, signals a connection to the past and a desire to address contemporary issues with the wisdom of previous teachings, particularly on social justice.
- His early addresses emphasize the importance of the Church's social teaching and the need to address modern challenges like artificial intelligence, echoing Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum.
- While opting for a more traditional approach, Pope Leo XIV also acknowledges the importance of solidarity and reaching out to the marginalized, which were central to Pope Francis's papacy.
- Some observers note that Pope Leo XIV's actions signal a desire to balance the more progressive aspects of Pope Francis's papacy with a return to some traditional practices and a focus on order and management.
- The new Pope is expected to continue addressing issues like clergy sex abuse and Vatican finances, which were also major challenges during Pope Francis's pontificate.
18 comments:
Oh, there's DEFINITELY continuity with Bergoglio. And how.
Jerome, you need to read the comments on the post below this one. You really need to repent and become an orthodox Catholic.
Pope Leo XIV holds the True Faith. Therefore, Pope Leo XIV is in continuity with each Pope from Saint Peter to Francis. As Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI declared:
Journalist Peter Seewald: "Then how, taking leave of the Curia, could you promise your successor absolute obedience without knowing who it would be?"
Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI: "The Pope is the Pope, regardless of who it is
(…)"
=======
Peter Seewald: "So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate?"
Emeritus: "No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now.
"If one isolates things, takes them out of context, one can construct opposites, but not if one looks at the whole.
"There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition.”
=======
"The Pope is the Pope." It is that simple. Today, we are called to communion with Pope Leo XIV. He is blessed with never-failing faith. His Magisterium is unassailable.
In regard as to our approach to Pope Leo XIV: Let us imitate Pope Benedict XVI's holy, outstanding example in regard to his approach to his immediate successor, Pope Francis.
Therefore, let us render unto Pope Leo XIV our "unconditional reverence and obedience.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT , you are confusing the term bad pope, of which there have been quite a few, with a heretical pope of which no actual pope has been condemned. Of course, pope zfrancis was a validly elected pope. Many acclaim him to have been a good to great pope, but others acclaim him to have Ben a bad pope. We are free to hold those opinions.
Well, Honorius was condemned as a heretic. How unassailable was his "magisterium"?
Father McDonald,
Until Pope Leo starts yelling and denigrating people an spouting off the cuff, I really won't see much continuity between Pope Leo and Francis.
In terms of the "marginalized" there is no group more marginalized than Catholics attached to the TLM
Marc, Pope Honorius, post mortem, was not condemned for personal heresy but not doing anything to stop a particular heresy. Big difference. That was due to either incompetence or indifference.
He was personally and specifically anathematized by two Ecumenical Councils. For centuries, the Liber Diurnus condemned his as an originator of the monothelite heresy. And again for centuries, every priest's breviary repeated his condemnation.
To suggest he was not anathematized for being a heretic is not in line with the actual condemnations...
Father McDonald, I understand that there are Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, who believe that Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, Saint John Paul II, etc., were good, as well terrible, Popes.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Also, the Council fathers burned his writings because they were heretical... so much for incompetence and indifference!
Marc your skewed views of the history of this and partial truths as well as anti papacy sentiments is showing:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-truth-about-pope-honorius
I've recited historical facts: Honorius was anathematized as a heretic by two councils, his heretical writings were burned at the 6th Council, the Roman Church held him as a heretic in the papal oath for several hundred years, and priests' breviaries did the same. The Roman Church described him as an originator of the monothelite heresy.
In the face of those historical facts, what you're doing is putting a gloss on those facts. And the article you sent is trying to address papal infallibility, which is not relevant.
By the way, the author of that article is now an Orthodox Christian, and he recently released a book called The Church and the Pope: The Case for Orthodoxy...
The part of the linked article I refer to is this:
Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius’s confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’s letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.
That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’s exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.
This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius’s successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, “only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity’s before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius’s speaking of Christ’s assumption of a “faultless” human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.
The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]
This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the “one will” formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.
The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius’s letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius’s “one will” formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.
Texts from the Sixth Council, with no gloss:
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity[.]
I'm going to go with the Ecumenical Council was correct on this one. Heck, even your own Church had it right for about 1,200 years!
Leo II, whom you reference accepted the condemnation -- as did every pope for hundreds of years. Heck, the Breviary reading repeating the condemnation is for the Feast of Leo II.
And obviously, no one believed that "a council has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope." That's absurd.
Seriously, it's like they didn't teach you history at that liberal seminary you went to, Father! (kidding, kidding)
Fr. AJM. Please. I'm not inclined to spend time on an article on catholic.com. We lose credibility when we place such stock in articles, editorials in Vatican newspapers and the like. The Council spoke and Honorius erred. Whether a pope is on, about, near, or playing musical chair, to me (potentially a schismatic, but so what) is semantics. Again, again I say to you, why can't the ecumenical councils, among other historical facts be good enough?
IMHO, and by the virtue of the passage of time, the farther we move away from the apostolic age time of the Fathers, the more we should eschew other than the original docs. That is why I find the need that evidently exists in the RC for "new doctrines" to be so dangerous as subjectivity enters into the consideration. The modern RC can't seem to handle reading/interpreting VII docs without interjecting agendas throughout. At some point, our shared history as a unified Church has to be good enough.
Post a Comment