Leo XIV vs. Francis: Ten Differences

Andrea Gagliarducci (VaticanReporting.Blogspot.com, 16 June) has identified ten characteristics that distinguish Pope Leo XIV from his predecessor.

1. A shift from a personalistic pontificate to a more collegial one. Francis ran the Vatican in an egocentric, uncommunicative and unpredictable way. Leo XIV, on the other hand, is discreet and reserved, but not unpredictable.

2. There is less improvisation [i.e. incompetence]. Francis loved to speak off the cuff. Leo XIV sticks to the written text and is more reliable in terms of content.

3. What Francis said had to be taken with a pinch of salt. Leo XIV pays close attention to detail, so the nuances of his speeches are important. Unlike Francis, he is not self-referencial, but speaks about the Church.

4. Francis was an ideologue who was stuck in the polarisation of the failed Second Vatican Council. Leo XIV belongs to another generation and is more of a pastor.

5. Leo XIV's worldview reflects a Catholic world that 'desires unity rather than division, while maintaining its many differences'.

6. Unlike Francis, Leo XIV is a calm and thoughtful pope who recognises the importance of gestures. The liturgy is more carefully crafted, with details being important for understanding everything, starting with the fact that Leo XIV decided to resume personally imposing the pallium on new metropolitan archbishops.

7. Following the destruction caused by Francis, Leo XIV recognises that the Church needs repair. This also means speaking out against the unnecessary tensions caused by Francis, who reduced everything to the 'here and now' and was unable to see the context of a problem.

8. Francis was a tyrant and dictator who bypassed his collaborators. People had to rely on gossip to understand his intentions. Leo XIV will not rely on gossip to disseminate confidential information. He is unlikely to use someone else to explain his point of view or announce a decision in advance.

9. During Francis's "super-communicative" papacy, true communication was lacking. Much was announced, but little was explained. For example: Financial reports were always published in the afternoon without a press conference. Strange things happened without explanation. Gagliarducci hopes that Leo XIV will revert to the traditional method of disseminating news.

10. For Gagliarducci, Leo XIV is 'American, but not North American; conciliatory, but not necessarily conciliar; decisive, but not divisive'.

His question: 'Will we journalists be able to produce Vatican journalism that is less personalised and more in-depth? This is the great challenge today."

Picture: © Mazur/cbcew.org.uk, CC BY-NC-ND, #newsXhkqrrvnst

LikeShare5 1.2K

yuca2111Jun 19

It seems modernism is a ticket to hell , so basically 90% of catholics are doomed .
If it is like that, then all the Eucharists in the novus ordo weren’t really transubstanciated this is precisely why, most catholics don’t want to hear out traditional minded people, and when a man stands and say traditionalists are "rigid, unflexible, small minded, etc" NOBODY defends them, such attacks come and go with Francis, who stood up for years saying all this and unsuspecting novus ordo catholics soak it up.
There are ways to tell the truth with a little bit more love.

P N FJun 20

@yuca2111 Modernism (and Synodality is perfect modernism) is a ticket to hell. According to Pope St. Pius X, Modernism is "the synthesis of all heresies." See his encyclical Paschendi (Pascendi Dominici Gregis - Papal Encyclicals).
Any person who is truly guilty of heresy, by definition, rejects some article of the Catholic Faith required to be a member of the Church in good standing. This is the constant teaching of Sacred Scripture and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. So, a "modernist heretic" is not member of the Church. It does not matter if they claim to be Catholic or not. It doesn't matter if they claim to be "the Pope." A heretic has cut himself off from the living body of Christ as long as he remains in that state of heretical belief.
Another infallible teaching of the Church is that "outside the Church there is no salvation." Jesus desires that all people would repent of their errors and believe the infallible teachings of the Church so that they can be saved through the Sacraments. But most people don't want to do that. They "choose" their own path, one contrary to the one recommended by Jesus and his true Church.
Therefore, those people who falsely call themselves Catholic, but who actually hold heretical "modernist" beliefs without repentance, will not be saved. This is not merely an "opinion" of traditionalists. This is the unchangeable, perennial teaching of the true Catholic Church since it was founded.
The Novus Ordo and the validity of the Eucharist in that context is a much more complex issue. But know this, the Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot changed. The Church's Magisterium stated that many times. This unchangeability of the Mass is an infallible Church teaching.
The Novus Ordo is something "new" as the Latin word "Novus" indicates. Some people believe it is "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." But that is impossible according to Catholic doctrine of the Mass because the prayers (including the form of the Consecration for the Wine) are substantially different in the Novus Ordo from those of the traditional Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The most glaring examples of the words of the Offertory prayers and the words of the Canon of the Mass. Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent stated unequivocally that those prayers of the Mass could not be substantially changed in the future.
Again, these are not "traditionalist" ideas. They are the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church from its beginning to the 1960s. Traditionalists just know and believe what the Church has always taught until the rupture in the 1960s. You can confirm this for yourself by reading older Catechisms and papal decrees.

yuca2111Jun 20edited

According to some traditionalists, anyone in the novus ordo is a modernist and part of a cult @P N F , now if that were true then 90% of "catholics" have acquire a ticket to hell. Again, if that were true, which it's not; when the Apostles saw some trying to exorcize demons in the name of Jesus, they asked Jesus if it was alright to stop them, He answered: "LET THEM..."
Did Jesus made the sacrifice turning His back to the Apostles? Did He do that in latin? No, the Latin mass wasn’t a thing that pop up right then with every part it has today, it was a process, BUT the one constant thing, ONE that never changed in any type of mass throughout time, were the SAME words Jesus used that night, and it wasn’t in latin, He used the language spoken by those who were there.
The problem with traditionalists is this... they love to tell others how heretic and uncatholic they are, with their 'modernism judgments', despite not knowing by claims like yours as of now, they are condemning them aswell.
This is why some novus ordo mass goers who have heard the harsh tone of some traditionalists, harden their hearts, tune off their words. Modernism is a heresy indeed, but it is also true the Eucharist still the same, the words still the same and some other parts... Telling people they’re heretics and uncatholic because of being a participant of the only mass they’ve ever known it is wrong.

traddocJun 19

I have developed a comprehensive list of things Bergoglio and Leo share. No. 1--the only point on my list--is that they are both modernists and you can't squeeze a sheet of tissue paper between them ideologically. Andrea's 10 points, therefore, don't really matter.

IrishpolJun 19

History will prove that you could not have said that any better.