FIVE POINTS TO RATE YOUR POPE LEO'S INTERVIEW WITH CRUX BY UK'S "THE CATHOLIC HERALD"! WE HAVE A NEW SUPREME PONTIFF WHO IS A 10!

The Catholic Herald of the UK has a commentary on Pope Leo's Crux interview. You can read it HERE.

Here are FIVE POINTED money bytes from their commentary:

Pope Leo has given an interview to Crux, and revealed his mind. But the exercise to read his mind needs a little code-breaking.

The news is good. It’s more than good. It’s excellent: the Pope is a Catholic. 

Traditional Latin Mass  

1.  Synodality could mean so many things. Pope Francis allowed it to be used as a platform to justify changing the teaching of the Church. Pope Leo is going to use it to allow the Church to be reminded of the teaching and the need of the Church.

What will happen if “we sit down and talk about" the Latin Mass? The Church will articulate the position that was always true BF (Before Francis). The bishops whom Francis consulted will be able to tell the truth about what they really said. The evidence that the TLM is the antidote to the loss of enchantment will get a hearing. The few diehard Novus Ordo fanatics will be shown to be the tiny minority of late modernity pensioners, stuck in a kind of time-warp shaped by John Lennon and E.E. Cummings. 

Women 

2.  There are parts of the world that never really promoted the permanent deaconate, and that itself became a question: Why would we talk about ordaining women to the diaconate if the diaconate itself is not yet properly understood and properly developed and promoted within the Church?

The Pope added: “I also wonder, in terms of a comment I made at one of the press conferences I participated in in the synod, in terms of what has oftentimes been identified as clericalism in the present structures of the Church. Would we simply be wanting to invite women to become clericalised, and what has that really solved?”

The defusing of the feminist assault is achieved with the simple innocence of asking a prior question: “How do we avoid more clericalism?”

 LGBTQ++++++++++++++++++

3. He has thought carefully and strategically about this. What he does each time it to dismantle the secular platform that the heterodox question has had built for it.

Here, he turns to the strategy of St Paul in Ephesians 3. Christians don’t have adjective. There is no such thing as a “gay” Christian. Just a baptised Christian who hands their sexuality over to Christ to mend, heal and direct it.

How does he implement this in the conversation. First, the unattributed anecdote which firms up one’s own position.

“I recall something that a cardinal from the eastern part of the world said to me before I was Pope, about ‘the western world is fixated, obsessed with sexuality’. A person’s identity, for some people, is all about sexual identity, and for many people in other parts of the world, that’s not a primary issue in terms of how we should deal with one another.  

“What I’m trying to say is what Francis said very clearly when he would say, ‘todos, todos, todos’. Everyone’s invited in.”

But whereas Pope Francis offered no caveat, no conditionality – hence his words were certainly heard to be the unconditional welcome of therapeutically driven relativism – Pope Leo slips in a little religious language which has the effect of reversing the meaning of what Pope Francis said.

“But I don’t invite a person in because they are or are not of any specific identity,” Pope Leo says. “I invite a person in because they are a son or daughter of God.”

You don’t come in defining yourself as a gay, bisexual or trans person and requiring everyone to accept you as you present yourself. You come in as a created person in need of redemption. If being the son or daughter of God means anything, it means the transformation of secular categorisations in the pursuit of holiness. 

 Fiducia Supplicans

4.  And then in another puncturing of the progressive campaign, which is as elegant as it is swift, he once more reverses what Pope Francis intended by giving priority to the teaching of the Church instead of undermining it with ambiguity. He prioritises marriage and then goes on to consider gay blessings.

“In Northern Europe they are already publishing rituals of blessing ‘people who love one another’, is the way they express it, which goes specifically against the document that Pope Francis approved, Fiducia Supplicans, which basically says, of course we can bless all people, but it doesn’t look for a way of ritualising some kind of blessing because that’s not what the Church teaches."

When “what the Church teaches” is given the prior interpretative leverage it ought always to have had, the dragon of ambiguity is slain. 

Conclusion: Prayer & Mystery! 

5. He ends with a plea to talk about the Latin Mass as a door to prayer and mystery, not as a political tool. Breaking the code, it was the progressives who made it political. The devotees of the Latin Mass wanted prayer and mystery.

The arguments, he surmises, were “not helpful for people who were looking for a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith that they seemed to find in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass”.

Pope Leo does not need to reverse the work of his predecessor. He will let a synodality that invokes the Magisterium do that.

 

 

 

 

IF POPE FRANCIS HAD BEEN AN AUTHORITARIAN ORTHODOX TRADITIONALIST WITH ALL THE TRAPPINGS, AND FOLLOWING POPE BENEDICT XVI, WHO WASN’T AUTHORITARIAN, WHERE WOULD WE BE TODAY????

The problem with the post-Vatican II Church is that what was believed, prior to Vatican II, that the Church could not and would not change, was blown apart by Vatican II, almost like a nuclear bomb. 

While many Catholics were shell-shocked by that in 1964 and 1965, others, especially the academic elites of the Church, were thrilled and used these changes to remodel the Church into something else altogether different, constantly in flux, like a reed swaying in the wind rather than a rock, immovable, unchangeable. 

While many were saying that all the changes were simply cosmetic and changes to discipline which could change, others were asking for doctrinal and moral changes. Those seeking that kind of change were hit over the head by St. Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.

Yet, that didn’t stop them. And after the long papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, they found their hero-advocate, an authoritarian, some would call a “Peronist” from Argentina. He was schooled in and loved the Church of the 1970’s and of the confusion and stirrings for change that Vatican II’s spirit demanded, that Pope Paul embraced, but to a point, and that of liberation theology of South America and the like.

And the only way Pope Francis could return the Church to the chaos, confusion and hunger for doctrinal and moral changes was to be the authoritarian pope he was and using his form of synodality to do it, plus autocratic, authoritarian Motu Proprios, like Traditionis Custodis and the Cardinal Fernandez Fiducia Supplicans.

Of course the orthodox traditionalists were mortified. Not with an authoritarian pope, but one who was authoritarian in the progressive ilk of those of the 1970’s. 

If Pope Francis had been authoritarian with traditionalist orthodox hopes and desires, he would have been worshipped like a god by them. But alas…

Pope Leo XIV has the difficult task of uprighting the barque of Peter but without tipping it over on the other side. God bless His Holiness with the grace he needs for this superhuman task!

Prior to Vatican II, Catholic laity prayed, paid and obeyed. They had no voice in the leadership of the Church or a vote on anything that went on in the universal, diocesan and parish levels of the Church. 

Today’s form of synodality and all that has organically occurred in the Church since 1965, and now, especially with social media, everyone, everyone, everyone, has an opinion and voice in terms of what they want in the Church and this has become a giant, unmanageable political/religious lobby. 

Even Pope Leo’s penchant for using “I think”, “for now” and “later on” are of this new Catholic mentality that all opinions and hopes are equal and even the pope’s ideas on that are on par with, let’s say, Southern Orders. Fasten your seatbelts, activate the airbags and put on your helmet, none of this Orwellian chaos will change anytime soon until we get an authoritarian, orthodox traditionalist pope. Don’t hold your breath that that will happen soon, if ever. 

IF YOU ARE DYING TO LIVE ON HILTON HEAD ISLAND, THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH, BOY DO I HAVE A HOME FOR YOU!

 You can view the entire home, here in God’s Kingdom, and it isn’t a hotel, but a single residence, with two buildings, and it can be yours for a mere $18 Million! That’s a bargain to say the least. You can view it HERE from Realtor.com.

TO INCULTURATE SUPERFLOUS THINGS INTO THE MASS (CULTURAL ACCRETIONS) OR NOT TO INCULTURATE CULTURAL ACCRETIONS: THAT IS THE QUESTION?

 One of the things that liturgists told us in the post-Vatican II era was that the Mass had to be simplified and stripped of cultural accretions, like unnecessary repetitions, things added to the vesture of priest for Mass and other such things, like Latin, ad orientem, kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, male altar boys and the like. 

Then comes the push for various cultures, but certainly not Western European Culture, to add to the Mass things to their celebration of the Mass which are “meaningful” to the people of various cultures, except of course, if you are of a Western European culture. 

There is an African Rite now that has Roman approval and was celebrated by Pope Francis (or maybe he was presiding not the celebrant?). 

There is a “yet to be approved” Filipino Rite often celebrated in the Philippines:

The "Misa ng Bayang Pilipino (MBP)" (a rite without any recorded approval from Rome) being celebrated at the National Meeting of Diocesan Directors of Liturgy. As of the moment of writing, no formal ascent or approval has been given by Rome for the celebration of the rite which includes supposed "inculturated" elements such as incense burned in clay braziers (Palayok) rather than censers, the celebrant carrying the crucifix at the introit procession and using it for blessing, and the showering of petals by altar servers during various points of the mass. Despite the lack of approval, this form has been frequently promoted to liturgists in the Philippines especially during Nation-wide Liturgical conferences in an attempt to showcase a "Filipinized" liturgy.

Here are some photos, with my astute comments about the photo:

This is a pet peeve of mine: celebrants, wear a long sleeve white or black clerical shirt, preferably with cuff links, so your bare, naked arms aren’t on display, especially at the elevations! UGH!

Kudos, here! When vesting a free-standing altar, make sure both sides are properly vested even if the “backside” not seen by the congregation, only by the priest(s)!

I wonder, where in non-Catholic Filipino culture is incense burned by placing it in a bowl and prancing it about? Does that need to be dragged into the Mass as a cultural accretions? And nothing is worse than a traditional censor used at Mass where the incense won’t burn and thus the priest is swinging a thurible with no smoke happening. The only thing worse than that is a bowl with no incense! What the????

But most peculiar is the celebrant carrying a crucifix in procession and blessing the people with it. It isn’t clear to me when that blessing takes place. Why isn’t it sufficient for the altar server to carry it in to lead the procession, a new kind a clericalism to have the priest celebrant do it, no? And the blessing, is it at the end of Mass instead of the priest using his hand to make the formal blessing??? Why do this during Mass instead of some kind of “Benediction” devotion?” Should some of this stuff be in devotions and not dragged into the Mass????

POOR POPE LEO! HE HAS TO THREAD THE NEEDLE BETWEEN ROBERT PREVOST, JORGE BERGOGLIO, POPE LEO XIII AND SAINT AUGUSTINE ALL WHILE BEING POPE LEO XIV

 

Rorate Caeli has a good series on Pope Leo. You can read the latest installment HERE.

I have a tendency, taught to me by my liberal arts education, to be critical when I read and hear what people have to write and say.

Pope Leo’s interview with Elise Allen of Crux demands critical reading and listening skills and reading between the lines. I have already pointed out his “American” or perhaps more specific, “Chicagoan” English ticks, like “I think”, “for now”, “later on.” I suggested that as pope, no longer Chicagoan Robert Prevost” that he not speak in anyway about Catholicism by prefacing it with “I think.” He simply needs to clean that up and immediately.

As for “for now” that too needs to be eliminated unless his agenda, clearly articulated, means he intends some kind a change in the future. For example, for now, Traditionis Custodis and Fiducia Supplicans remain in place but I am open to adjusting or eliminating these two polarizing documents and make statements that are more pastoral, less confusing and won’t lead to a hetero-praxis. 

“Later on” is something parents say to their demanding children, “later on” means never but without being so dogmatic about it. 

But back to the Rorate Caeli article; while Pope Leo is now pope and no longer Robert Prevost, he certainly is still Robert Prevost at the core, but trying not to alienate those who adored Pope Francis like Pope Francis alienated those who adored Pope Benedict XVI. That is hard to do, but he is doing it and admirably so.

But this is what he was like as Robert Prevost, bishop, in Peru as described by the Rorate Caeli commentary:

“…His period as bishop of Chiclayo might be most informative. It is a diocese with more middle class Catholics and relatively less poverty than in other parts of the Peruvian church; less affected by social upheaval and the lure of Liberation Theology, its Opus Dei presence is less radically hardline, though still very much "conservative." While conservative clergy feared that Prevost, having been installed by Francis, would engage in a purge, this did not happen. He put his trust in the local conservative clergy, was supportive of Opus Dei and its university, and did not bring in his own Augustinians.

He did not implement Amoris Laetitia to allow communion for the divorced remarried, made zero controversial personnel or seminary decisions, spoke out against gender ideology, tweeted against abortion and gay families, all while refraining from supporting partisan social justice causes. In liturgy he was described as strict, ‘say the black do the red’ being his approach. Fr. Bernardino Gil, former vicar general of Chiclayo told The Pillar: “He is a very smart, well-rounded man, and he always gave care to all aspects of the liturgy.”

The Pillar received similar reports regarding doctrinal orthodoxy. Fr. José Luis Zamora, former rector of the Chiclayo seminary, said about Prevost:

“He always showed great respect for doctrine, for Catholic moral teachings, and for the social doctrine of the Church. I never saw anything that stood out negatively, he was never ambiguous at all… In doctrinal matters he was always characterized by a great charity and a great clarity.”

 

The rector of the Chiclayo Cathedral, Fr. Jorge Millan Cotrina, who lived in the residence of the bishop together with other priests, also spoke to The Pillar regarding bishop Prevost: “He was very open, talked with everyone, received everyone, but was very clear on doctrinal matters. I spoke often with him about these issues and he was very clear.”

“He arrived in the diocese to build upon what had been done before, he did not make any radical changes. He came and wanted to know the work we had been doing, and little-by-little gave everything his own touch, but he never came with prejudices because we’re ‘conservatives,’ on the contrary, he always trusted us.”

He also told Argentinian news outlet Radio Con Vos about how Prevost dealt with homosexuality:

He knows very well what is the teaching of Christ," [on such matters]; "he showed it to us in his homilies; I never heard from him one sentence in favor of all these novelties. Rather, he was always a man who tried to put realities in the proper place."

Érika Valdivieso, who led the Institute of the Family in the Catholic University Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo likewise told The Pillar:

“He was always very interested in the work we did, he always encouraged us to work in public policies in favor of the family and to promote a pastoral and academic message defending the family… As a bishop he was always very faithful to the Church’s social doctrine, he called us to protect and care for the family, but always with charity. I never heard him use hurtful words, even if he was very clear with the doctrine of the Church. He saw everyone as a child of God but always spoke very clearly in doctrinal matters.”…”

WHY ARE SO MANY CATHOLICS BECOMING MADONNAS? DON’T CRITICIZE YOUR FATHER, EVEN THE HOLY FATHER—IT INDICATES A MADONNA COMPLEX!

 From Catholic Arena:

67 year old singer 'Madonna' has lashed out at Pope Leo XIV for saying that his 'priority is the Gospel', not 'solving the world's problems' 

In an Instagram reply, she wrote:

'The whole point of teaching and learning the gospel is to inspire people to love one another and make the world a better place. Not just with words but with actions, which is exactly what Jesus did. I am truly disappointed  by this'

In 2022, she requested a meeting with Pope Francis but received no reply and in 2024 tried to get his attention by sharing deranged crude images of her and Francis. In 2025, she called for Pope Leo XIV to enter Gaza. 

OKAY, HOLY FATHER, POPE LEO, YOU SAID THERE’S NO PROBLEM IN CELEBRATING THE MASS OF PAUL VI IN LATIN! CAN I OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THAT?

 This is what Pope Leo said to Elise Allen (great last name btw, although spelled wrong) the following:

“Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II Rite there’s no problem.”

Holy Father, let me request some indults concerning how the Modern Mass can be celebrated in Latin.

1. Make clear the Modern Mass may be celebrated facing either direction.

2. Allow the option of the Roman Canon prayed in a quiet voice with all the TLM rubrics and the inclusion of the Mysterium Fideii embedded in the consecration of the Precious Blood. 

3. Make clear by way of rubric, that kneeling for Holy Communion has a place of pride in the Modern Mass. 

It seems to me that if the Modern Mass is celebrated in Latin with the options I would like the Holy Father to codify, that indeed, it would be in continuity with the TLM but the Mass of Paul VI.

And beyond that, if the pope would allow the Order of the TLM, the PATFOTA, the older offertory prayers, the triple Domini non sum Dignus and the Last Gospel, applied to the Modern Mass—that would be the icing on the cake!

THE FALLACY AND/OR CONFUSION ABOUT TODAS, TODAS, TODAS…

The first problem with todas, todas, todas, is that it is used first and foremost to include the so-called “LGBTQ++” people, which classifies them not as individuals, but belonging to a secular/political movement. There is plenty of ideology in this political movement that the Church should condemn and do so uncompromisingly. 

It’s like a pope saying, in a theoretical sense, todas, todas, todas, but referring to a political affiliation that  is anti-Christ in some or all of its ideologies. Thus fascists are invited without condemnation of their political movement that is dangerous to the Faith and to society. Are fascists as individuals, if Catholics, required to attend Mass each Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation? You betcha! Are fascists as a political group asked to attend Mass as a group and sit together wearing t-shirts proudly announcing their adherence  to the fascist movement? I hope not.

If so, the Catholic Church has entered into the realm of the absurd!

I live in the conservative south. We have plenty of homosexual people living in downtown Savannah and downtown Charleston.  Like most people, their political affiliations are not flaunted unless of course it is time for an election. When I was at the Cathedral in Savannah from 1985 to 1991, we had plenty of gay Catholics, many in our all-mens’ choir and in the congregation at large. They did not flaunt any aspect of their life that might have been sinful. I always thought of the partners out there as people seeking the Lord and I did not fantasize about what happened behind closed doors. For all I know they could have been yelling screaming and hitting each other all day long. I did not focus on that!

Even in the 1980’s if two people of the same sex came up to me after Mass and asked for a blessing due to some intention they had, I would do it in a casual way. What’s the big deal!

BTW, when I was at the cathedral is when the AIDS crisis just began with all its misunderstandings about contagion and it was before there was adequate treatment to prevent dying from the AIDS pneumonia. I saw several of our choir members enter the hospital and die within days of developing that pneumonia. I happily visited them, anointed them and offered them Holy Communion or Viaticum. 

Certainly Pope Francis and Pope Leo don’t mean by “todas, todas, todas” that the LGBTQ+++ political movement should attend Mass in drag, half naked, wearing g-strings or less and leather as in S&M or did they?

THE IDEOLOGICAL USES OF THE MODERN AND ANCIENT MASS

Vatican II asked for a very conservative refinement of the Tridentine Mass, not a wholesale reform oR revision. Consilium and the spirit of Vatican II liturgical theologians reformed and revised the Mass way beyond what Vatican II wanted and it is the reformist agenda of theologians, post-Consilium, that did the most damage, not only to the manner in which the Modern Mass is celebrated but its environment! It was all blamed on Vatican II.

Worse than that, the laity and most of the clergy did not ask for the changes in the Mass that were imposed upon them in the most pre-Vatican II authoritarian manner. To boot, we were told that we were wrong in preferring the old ways to the new and this just a few years after Vatican II. It was crass, ideological manipulation by using psychology to do it! WHAT WAS CONSIDERED HOLY ONE MOMENT WAS DEMONIZED THE NEXT! That’s almost up there with blaspheming the Holy Spirit! 

Pope Leo, lead the hierarchy in a repentance of that and how the modern Mass was disfigured by bishops, priests and laity and almost immediately after the new Missal was promulgated by improvisation and creativity.

And that manipulation was used to change the Church from what it was to what is almost unrecognizable to what is was. Vatican II did not mandate that. 

Pope Leo lead the hierarchy in a repentance of that. 

My recommendation is to do what Vatican II asked in terms of the refinement of the Mass. Minor simplification, more intelligibility, which means some vernacular while maintaining Latin and Greek. 

Repent of forcing the Mass to be celebrated facing the people and on a free standing altar. Repent of forcing people to stand to receive Holy Communion in the hand and from a parade of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Repent of the forced wreckovation of churches, altars and Catholicism. 

Repent of saying everything about the Tridentine Mass was wrong based upon organic development that was codified in its rubrics. Not only were the rubrics mocked but every mystical aspect associated with the Tridentine Mass was mocked and derided as well as the spirituality and morality that flows from the TLM.

If the Holy Father doesn’t want to return the Tridentine Mass, give the Modern Mass every aspect of the form and ethos of the Tridentine Mass. It isn’t too difficult to do so. 

Those who want the Tridentine Rite exclusively and reject everything about Vatican II including the popes of Vatican II and use the most vile language against Vatican II and the popes. REPENT! 

CUTTING POPE LEO XIV SOME SLACK AS HE BEGINS TO REALIZE THAT INDEED HIS HOLINESS IS THE SUPREME, AND LET ME EMPHASIZE, THE SUPREME PONTIFF…

Pope Leo has been pope for only four months or so. Within the first weeks of His Holiness’ papacy, he asked that people be patient with him as he’s “new on the job.”

He didn’t clarify to what he was referring. But he did say early on that Pope Francis was in heaven. It’s one thing for a bishop or a priest or a lay person to say so and so is in heaven in the pejorative way, it is quite another thing for the pope, any pope, to say it apart from a formal beatification or canonization liturgy. That’s a learning curve for Pope Leo formed under the soft theology, bleeding heart, post Vatican II Church where Requiem Masses are now celebrations of life and an informal canonization or beatification.

Pope Leo, be very circumspect with your language.

So too, in the interview about LGBTQ+++ ideologies, Pope Leo, laudably so, said that the sexual moral teachings of the Church will not change nor the nature of licit marriage between one man and one woman for the begetting of children and forming of Christian families. (I’ve paraphrased that). 

But then he said, and without thinking, “I don’t think.” 

Holy Father, you are the Supreme Pontiff! Pope Francis no longer is. When he was pope, and we were trying to decipher what he was saying on this, that and the other, often commentators who were orthodox would say, “He’s not going to change doctrine, I DON’T THINK!” Which meant, well, there’s a possibility it might, under Pope Francis!” One just wasn’t sure!

Pope Leo, be clear and definitive! 

Also, let’s recover the masculinity of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church. Sometimes you have to be as blunt as Charlie Kirk was in getting across what is definitive in the Church’s teaching and what God expects of His people. A man must be a father or a spiritual father or a Holy Father. A man must be manly and definitive. Let biological women bring the nuances. 

POPE LEO WON’T BE BOWED BY IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS! NOW, LET’S TALK LITURGY!

 Copied from RORATE CAELI:

From an excerpt of the new book-interview with Elise Ann Allen, of Crux, released today -- a direct quote from the Pope's response:

Elise Ann Allen: Regarding the study group on liturgy, what is being studied? How much of the reason for establishing this was related to divisions surrounding the Traditional Latin Mass, for example, or issues such as the new Amazonian rite?

 

Leo XIV: My understanding of what the group came out of is primarily from issues that have to do with the inculturation of the liturgy. How to continue the process of making the liturgy more meaningful within a different culture, within a specific culture, in a specific place at any given time. I think that was the primary issue.

 

There is another issue, which is also another hot-button issue, which I have already received a number of requests and letters [about]: The question about, people always say ‘the Latin Mass.’ Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II rite there’s no problem. Obviously, between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go. It’s obviously very complicated.

 

I do know that part of that issue, unfortunately, has become – again, part of a process of polarization – people have used the liturgy as an excuse for advancing other topics. It’s become a political tool, and that’s very unfortunate. I think sometimes the, say, ‘abuse’ of the liturgy from what we call the Vatican II Mass, was not helpful for people who were looking for a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith that they seemed to find in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Again, we’ve become polarized, so that instead of being able to say, well, if we celebrate the Vatican II liturgy in a proper way, do you really find that much difference between this experience and that experience?

 

I have not had the chance to really sit down with a group of people who are advocating for the Tridentine rite. There’s an opportunity coming up soon, and I’m sure there will be occasions for that. But that is an issue that I think also, maybe with synodality, we have to sit down and talk about. It’s become the kind of issue that’s so polarized that people aren’t willing to listen to one another, oftentimes. I’ve heard bishops talk to me, they’ve talked to me about that, where they say, ‘we invited them to this and that and they just won’t even hear it’. They don’t even want to talk about it. That’s a problem in itself. It means we’re into ideology now, we’re no longer into the experience of church communion. That’s one of the issues on the agenda. 

 

(The interview was conducted in English, so this is the original text. From “Leo XIV: Citizen of the World, Missionary of the 21st Century” - full quote regarding the matter: Source.)

YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES: POPE LEO WILL UPHOLD CATHOLIC SEXUAL MORALITY

The video is far more thorough than Crux's soundbyte article I link. Pope Leo struggles not to create a firestorm of media backlash against him as it concerns the LGBTQ+++ ideologies. Pope Leo speaks about the polarization in the Church that Pope Francis caused, without mentioning the late Holy Father’s name, but nonetheless, that polarization happened under Pope Francis’ pontificate. 

This interview also gives us an insight into exactly what Pope Leo said to Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ. Fr.Martin said that for Pope Leo the LGBTQ++++ ideologies would not be at the forefront of Pope Leo’s papacy, but rather war and peace and reducing the polarization in the Church which the LGBTQ+++ ideologies, amongst others, have caused in the Church under Pope Francis’ pontificate. 

 

Leo said he is “trying not to continue to polarize or promote polarization in the church,” but stated clearly that he is trying to promote the attitude adopted by Pope Francis that, “Everyone’s invited in, but I don’t invite a person in because they are or are not of any specific identity.”

In Crux interview, Pope stresses welcome of LGBTQ Catholics, won’t change teaching 

I THINK THAT POPE LEO SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT SYNODALITY!

 

Pope Leo is Christic-Centric and understands the soteriological mission of the Church. He explains synodality always with Christ and salvation!

Read this Vatican News report on Cardinal Grech’s love for synodality. It could be the description of any secular corporation or NGO’s experience of the same!

Not a word about Christ, the salvation of the world, our Blessed Mother, the communion of angels and saints. Nothing about the Most Holy Trinity.

It is just a grotesque self congratulatory meme about the institutional processes and development of ecclesial meetings! 🤢 🤮 

Cardinal Grech: Third phase of synodal process is ‘step forward’ for Church

In a note published on its 60th anniversary, Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, traces the evolution of the Synod of Bishops and looks ahead to the future.