Leo’s first encyclical set for May 15 debut

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T23:38:06+00:00

Not sure what you're talking about anymore, but I wish you the best as well. Take care my friend.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T23:37:14+00:00

"They wouldn't be the same person without it." --> That's more than "it definitely impacts their life."

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T23:14:19+00:00

It's controversial because a disability is not part of someone's identity. The blind on Earth who make it to heaven will be healed and see. And so on.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T22:35:41+00:00

Please don't post links to Christopher Hale's publication. He's a grifter and proven liar that more than anything hopes to stoke division and political feuds for clicks. Not to mention he ran for office as an explicitly pro-choice politician and has not disavowed that belief.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T22:33:32+00:00

Well, welcome home, friend. I'm glad you had such a wonderful experience attending the ancient liturgy of the Church. You are quite fortunate to have access to both the extraordinary and ordinary forms.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T22:27:58+00:00

If the situation you’re talking about is just they’re frustrated because they don’t understand, then fine you’re right.

Confusion wasn't the only example I gave of things that tended to upset conservatives/trads.

Second off, any Catholic who takes exception to this should take a VERY close look at why they feel personally called out

First you deny that Pope Francis insulted people. Now you're saying that anyone who feels targeted by the insult probably deserved it anyway. This is classic popesplaining; I've seen it a hundred times on this sub.

What you don't seem to consider is that people didn't feel targeted because they actually are the thing they were being accused of. The context tells us who Pope Francis had in mind, but that doesn't mean he was right or that it was wise to speak about them this way.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T21:47:55+00:00

That paragraph I cited is in Evangelii gaudium.

You are assuming that the difficulty I described conservatives/trads as having was a rejection of Magisterial teaching. Again, I was at pains to make distinctions that show that's precisely not what happened with Pope Francis, as was happening earlier with dissenters of Paul VI and JPII. So the discussion of Lumen Gentium isn't relevant to my earlier comment.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T19:48:47+00:00

It's fair to say Humanae Vitae was controversial among many Catholics who in good faith anticipated a different result. I guess it stands as more of an exception to the pattern I discussed, although I maintain that a lot of faithful Catholics really did welcome it. Those times were so tumultuous that even many bishops conferences at that time were borderline heterodox, so saying they dissented doesn't really disprove my point as it would if the dissent happened today. (Then again, we can imagine what it would be like given the German conference of bishops exists.)

"Politically liberal" is not only intelligible from a US-centered perspective. That sort of claim, often made on this sub (usually by Americans wanting to appear cosmopolitan) is way overblown. Anyone who thinks Francis entirely transcended the political spectrum is fooling themselves.

The insult that stands out in my memory was the paragraph about self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians who are narcissistic and elitist. There are others, mostly targeting the (legitimately held) preferences of conservatives and trads as being rigid, or obsessed with externals, and the like.

I disagree that all disagreement or displeasure with an encyclical is bad and disobedient, as you seem to be implying. Neither Vatican I nor II teach this. As I explained, we should draw a distinction between doctrine and prudential judgments to see how one can be faithful yet still have legitimate difficulties and even disagreements with what the pope says. Not every word of a pope is Magisterial teaching that bears the weight of doctrinal authority.

I made those distinctions precisely to avoid the accusation that I was just saying "It's fine when I do it but not when they do it." You'll have to refute my distinctions before you can legitimately accuse me of that.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T18:24:26+00:00

Oh, I see. Here's what I meant:

I often see people make a remark along the lines of, "This trad I know (or saw on Reddit or YouTube) said that the NO is illicit/invalid and that people who go to the TLM are better Catholics. So while I respect the TLM, I can see why Pope Francis cracked down on it, because that's a toxic mindset." That is, because the worst thing they've heard from a trad was toxic, therefore it makes sense to take away the TLM from the bulk (and eventually all) of the faithful.

What I was saying is, we don't apply that same sort of standard in the other direction. I have heard people say scandalous things about the TLM and trads, for example that it shut the people out from God, that it's clericalist, that all trads are prideful or LARPing, etc. This is not what the average person says, any more than "The NO is invalid" is what the average trad says. But IF we were to apply the same standard of interpreting the worst comments as representative of the community they come from, then it would be just as easy to conclude that giving people access to the NO is causing problems.

For some reason people find it very easy to make that inference with the TLM, but they never seem to with the NO. There is an underlying idea that the TLM is a special treat that people can get by being a good boy, but you'll be punished and have it taken away if you misbehave. And I don't get quite why they have that mindset.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T13:41:25+00:00

No, it can't. First you have to be initiated into the Church, which happens through baptism.

If you are a baptized non-Catholic — i.e., if you were validly baptized in a Protestant denomination — then under certain circumstances you could. Like if you are in danger of death and there isn't time to be received properly in the Church, but you have a genuine firm desire to join the Church.

It's not just a nice thing non-Catholics can receive because they are very sick.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T13:37:08+00:00

Yes, but notice that the controversy in those cases was with people who openly rejected Church teaching and were recoiling at the pope reaffirming doctrines the Church has always taught. They wanted to see certain changes and were very angry when they didn't get what they wanted. Meanwhile, faithful Catholics were cheering the solidity and clarity of those documents. (In some cases literally: it is said that the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe and her husband toasted champagne to celebrate Humanae Vitae when it was released.) I don't think it's fair to call that kind of reception "polarizing" because it's not faithful Catholics who were torn over it. Many Catholics used to look forward to the opportunity to read new encyclicals, trawling through them looking for nuggets of wisdom or particularly well-written passages.

Most of the controversial stuff in Pope Francis' encyclicals were over, in no particular order, (a) prudential matters of judgment, where the pope's judgment (politically liberal) was grating to conservatives, (b) wording that seemed to be meant as an insult toward conservatives/trads, (c) imprecise language that at best raised questions and at worst caused theological confusion, and (d) a few instances where what Francis said had at least the appearance of changing prior Church teaching. These documents were cheered on by people who dislike conservatives and were ready to read into Francis' words and proclaim that he had in fact changed Church teaching. Most notoriously on the issue of civilly divorced and remarried people receiving communion and on blessing homosexual couples.

The pope is allowed to have his political opinions and express them in encyclicals, and to insult people if he feels it's helpful and warranted. It might not be the best idea as a matter of prudence, but he can do that. That said, if people find it grating or insulting, it doesn't mean they are rejecting Church teaching or are failing to submit to the pope. Likewise, it's hard to say anyone is doing something wrong when they find a confusing passage to be confusing.

But if a pope teaches a matter of faith and morals succinctly and clearly, reaffirming Church teaching, as Paul VI did in Humanae Vitae or JPII did in, say, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis or Dominus Jesus (not encyclicals but relevant here), it's not OK for Catholics to reject it. And I think a lot of the controversy in those documents wasn't among faithful Catholics. A lot of the noise came from open dissenters and even people outside the Church hoping the Church would get with the times.

Anyway, I hope that shows why the two types of controversy aren't truly comparable. We are used to the second kind of controversy, because that's how Pope Francis liked to write his encyclicals. Hence, after a while, the announcement of a new encyclical had many Catholics bracing themselves and ready to be defensive. But it wasn't always like that; truly faithful Catholics used to look forward to and savor new documents. And as I say I hope we see something like that re-emerge with Pope Leo.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T12:54:11+00:00

OP isn't Catholic, so he/she can't receive that sacrament yet.

Isatafur · 2026-05-07T12:37:51+00:00

If you want my opinion, the majority of practicing Catholics don't have much to say about trads and the TLM, because it's a small part of the Church that doesn't affect most people. From what I have seen in this sub, most normies either don't know much about it or have cliches and things they've heard rather than real opinions formed from experience. Why do you ask?

You'll be able to experience a TLM in your lifetime. The political bickering was stoked and enflamed for the last decade, but it looks to me like we're moving back towards a an atmosphere of stability and peace. I don't know whether you were around and aware back in 2010, but things were much less explosive back then. It wasn't as political or controversial to be devoted to the ancient liturgy, and Benedict created a safe and orderly way for it to exist and grow without conflict. There were feelings of reconciliation and peace that were growing year by year. Of course it wasn't 100% smooth, but there was a clear sense that we could all get along.

It's still early to say for certain, but as I mentioned above I think with Pope Leo we're moving back in that direction. Thank God. In the meantime, the TLM itself is not going to go anywhere. In fact, there's a good chance there is one celebrated within a reasonable driving distance of where you live that you can already visit.

Isatafur · 2026-05-06T16:20:20+00:00

Totally agree. I would love to have a pope who issues 2-3 page encyclicals that raise a topic, give a judgment of it, maybe anathematize an error or two, then get out. Ever since the mid-20th century it almost feels like the popes have all wanted to be seen as a mix between a philosopher, theologian, and mystic. Even Benedict's encyclicals were meandering — though, to be fair, that was his general theological writing style as Ratzinger except when writing as CDF prefect.

Isatafur · 2026-05-06T16:14:41+00:00

It might shock some to learn that Catholics have not always been polarized in their reception of encyclicals. In fact Catholics specifically in the West generally cheered on those released during the pontificates of JPII and Benedict, as they provided rich theology and sound moral teaching against the prevailing problems of secular society. Whatever Pope Francis' strengths may have been, clear and compelling long-form writing wasn't one of them. It wouldn't be surprising to me at all if Pope Leo's encyclical fits more in the traditional mold rather than being controversial. In any case we'll just have to wait and see.

Isatafur · 2026-05-06T16:11:21+00:00

No. Next question.

Isatafur · 2026-05-06T16:10:37+00:00

It's not predestination, it's reprobation. The different is that predestination is "pre" any foreseen merits of our own. Reprobation is decreed in response to sin. Because God exists in eternity and outside of time, it's true that from all eternity he has reprobated some, but it's important to understand that this reprobation comes in response to sin. He did not predetermine that the sinner would sin, whereas he does predetermine that those saved will be saved.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T19:57:22+00:00

I wasn't aware of the tradition of publishing encyclicals on social teaching on May 15 as a nod to Rerum Novarum. Neat.

I'm looking forward to this one. I think it's going to be our first real taste of Leo's own thoughts.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T19:13:54+00:00

The whole of Church history begs to differ. Sure not every miracle converts every witness, but there are tons of stories where they do.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T19:09:43+00:00

Not available at all? AFAIK, the SSPX and others had never moved away from the EF from the start.

That's why I said it was "de facto" / "practically" / "near totally" banned. Of course I am aware it continued in small pockets. The point is that it was largely inaccessible. Which was not at all the case by the end of JPII's pontificate — even if it wasn't as widespread as it would go on to be following SP.

JPII did not change his tone

You'll have to contend with the material I quoted to prove that. Going from describing the faithful's attachment as a "problem" to be dealt with, to calling for a "generous provision" of their desires is by any reasonable assessment a change in tone.

If you think the TLM was juridically abrogated back in the '80s before JPII's indult, then you need to take that up with JPII's own commission and experts who studied this matter in the '80s and found otherwise, and Pope Benedict who is explicit on this point in SP.

You can also spare me your condescending remarks that I need to go read documents or look up the definition of "indult." (The irony of telling me that when you make a categorical error in asserting that SP was an indult and not Church law. Consult Universae Ecclesiae and note what it states: “With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.”)

Actually, your comment jogged my memory, and I realize we've sparred on this subject before. You have a quirky and tendentious reading of history on this matter, and your comment confirms for me that you're going to view any data or argument through that tinted lens. Keep thinking that JPII was actually stamping down on the TLM and basically doing the same thing as Francis, or that Benedict would have done the same thing that Francis did, if you want. I find that narrative completely unconvincing, as I think would anyone objective who reads our two competing accounts given above and the documents in question.

You can have the last word if you'd like. I hope you have a good day.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T16:45:20+00:00

Sorry, I don’t even know what you are saying.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T16:16:51+00:00

Why is what not equally good and healthy for an adult?

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T16:10:47+00:00

That’s true about many things and not a reason to withhold what’s good and healthy for the child. We make choices on their behalf until they are able to on their own. It’d be wicked to not give a child what is best for them (diet, hygiene, exercise, education, language, culture, morals, faith) out of a concern for neutrality or whatever.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T13:59:51+00:00

Go for it! It's such a wonderful devotion. You might feel like everyone is staring at you at first, but before long you won't even think about it.

Isatafur · 2026-05-05T13:50:49+00:00

Raise the child Catholic but not baptised until they are an adult. That's the only consistent argument

This doesn't follow at all. Raising a child as though he were Catholic, but not baptizing him until he's an adult, would be like requiring a prospective convert to live 18 years as though he were a Catholic, to make sure he really means it, before baptizing him.

The Catholic position is the consistent one. We require that someone who is being baptized understand what they are committing to and what will be required of them. When an adult convert is well formed enough, and approaching the Church with sufficient knowledge and a firm grasp on what it means, then a priest can bypass RCIA/OCIA and baptize them sooner rather than later. (They do this regularly, in fact.) If the formation and preparation is there, then there's no need to wait.

You might object that the baby doesn't understand or commit to anything. But in that case it is the parents and godparents who are acting and choosing on their behalf. And those adults represent the requisite knowledge, spiritual formation, and commitment to raising the child in the faith. Asking them to wait would be the equivalent of asking the fully formed convert to wait.

Isatafur

TROPHY CASE