I am speaking about the literal interpretation from whatever language he delivers them

He preaches in Italian.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not do this. They did not celebrate daily Mass as publicly as Pope Francis, and they did not have daily homilies published in this way. Instead, they occasionally delivered prepared homilies at public Masses on special occasions, and only these were published. 

And, may I suggest, there was a very good reason for that practice. Just to boost your confidence in the translation services in play in Vatican City, you want to make note that Benedict XVI's 2007 Summorum Pontificum is currently officially available in Latin and....(drum roll, please) Hungarian. Yes, Hungarian.

Don't. Get. Me. Started.

I don't recall this being an issue with Pope Benedict. Am I the only one noticing this issue?

“These homilies of the pope are recorded in their entirety. But they do not undergo the procedure for his official discourses, when it comes to the parts improvised off-the-cuff.

“That is, they are not transcribed from the audio recording, cleaned up in thought and expression, then submitted to the pope and finally made public in the approved text.

“The complete texts of the weekday homilies of pope Bergoglio remain secret. Only two partial summaries of it are provided, by Vatican Radio and by “L’Osservatore Romano,” redacted independently of one another and therefore with a greater or lesser extent of word-for-word citations.

“It is not known whether this practice – aimed both at safeguarding the pope’s freedom of speech and at defending it from the risks of improvisation – will be maintained or modified.”

 Francis didn't speak but acted by canonizing the Otranto martyrs.

That process was begun under John Paul II in 1986 and moved ahead under Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 as I wrote about here. Francis had no choice but to act, because it was waiting for him upon his arrival.

Only a no knock warrant can get to the bottom of this.

#StopOrWe'llFillibuster

Hope Floats.

Sigh.

Pope Francis on the possibility of salvation for atheists

In a nutshell, Francis was not talking about non-Catholics or non-Christians. He was not talking about those who profess another religion with their own mediators. He was not talking about those who pray to other gods. He was talking about atheists.

Moreover, Francis was clear that whatever graces are offered to atheists (such that they may be saved) are from Christ. He was clear that salvation is only through Christ’s Sacrifice. In other words, he is not suggesting – and I think some are taking it this way – that you can be saved, get to heaven, without Christ.

So, have a care with these sermons. It is great to get pithy lines from the Holy Father about something that is crystal clear such as, say, the Devil. It is another when the pithy quip veers into something that is more difficult to untangle. It is best not to jump to negative conclusions based on the incomplete reports about fervorini of ambiguous magisterial authority.

Oops.

To achieve superstar status at least four sockpuppet accounts which have a lively dialogue with each other are needed.

Only if you smoke at the same time. You could choke to death that way.

Love the look of studied incompetence.

 A more consistent and determined use of the Passive Voice to deny ascribing responsibility I have not seen outside of grammar books. 

Mistakes were made.

Heads were lost.

Debts were increased.

Feelings were hurt.

Shake, stand back, then watch it fizz.

It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children

You will know the tree by its fruit.

1. Mass Muslim immigration
2. Everyone with a right to bear arms

I think there's a reason Detroit and say, El Paso, have differing levels of Mosques.

By the way, the comments at the link are choice.