Pope Leo XIV's inauguration Mass: What to know about the official start of the Chicago native's papacy
VATICAN CITY — Global dignitaries and faith leaders from around the world will gather in Vatican City on Sunday as Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV presides over his inauguration Mass, which will officially mark the beginning of his ministry as the 267th pontiff.
Robert Francis Prevost, a 69-year-old Augustinian missionary raised in south suburban Dolton, made history May 8 when he was elected as the first American-born pope in the Catholic Church's 2,000-year history.
The spiritual leader of some 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, Pope Leo XIV began his term with a message of unity and bridge-building, urging prayer 'for the whole Church, for peace in the world.'
Here's what to know about the pope's upcoming inaugural Mass:
The liturgical service is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in Rome, 3 a.m. Central Time.
The Mass will be celebrated at St. Peter's Square in front of St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. Designed by famed Italian sculptor and architect Gian Lorenzo Bernini in the 17th century, the landmark square is known for its iconic elliptical colonnades, which symbolize embracing the faithful.
EWTN Global Catholic Television Network plans to livestream the Mass.
American dignitaries include Vice President J.D. Vance, who will lead a U.S. delegation to the inauguration Mass. Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, will be joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic, and Second Lady Usha Vance. International leaders scheduled to attend include Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
The event is free to the public and tickets aren't required. While it's hard to predict how many people will arrive, the crowd at the inaugural Mass of predecessor Pope Francis in 2013 was estimated at 150,000 to 200,000.
The new pope is expected to be presented with the official symbols of his papacy. The pallium, a liturgical vestment made of wool from lambs raised by Trappist monks, symbolizes the pope's role as the shepherd of the faithful; the pope's pallium is worn on the shoulders, fastened with three pins resembling the nails of the cross, according to the National Catholic Reporter.
The Fisherman's Ring, also known as the Piscatory Ring, represents the pope's connection to St. Peter; the ring is smashed or broken after a pontiff's death.
There's no set end time. The inaugural Mass for Pope Francis lasted roughly two hours.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump gives blunt response to Newsom daring Homan to arrest him: 'I would'
President Donald Trump suggested he would be willing to arrest California Gov. Gavin Newsom if his administration obstructs ICE operations amid riots in Los Angeles on Monday. Trump made the statement in a brief exchange with reporters after disembarking from Marine One outside the White House. Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Trump whether he though Border Czar Tom Homan should take up Newsom on his dare to come arrest him. "He's daring Tom Homan to come and arrest him. Should he do it?" Doocy asked. "I would do it I were Tom," Trump responded. "I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity. But I do think it would be a great thing. He's done a terrible job. I like Gavin Newsom. He's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent. Everybody knows." Trump went on to state his belief that many of the rioters and protesters in Los Angeles are professional agitators rather than real protesters. "The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail," Trump said. Newsom swiftly responded to Trump's comments in a post on social media. "The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor," Newsom wrote. "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Homan told "Fox & Friends" earlier on Monday that he had told an NBC reporter that "no one's above the law," but there was no discussion about arresting Newsom at that time. "What we discussed was for those protesters that crossed the line… you can protest, you get your First Amendment rights… But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property, or I'd say that you impede law enforcement, or you're knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien… that's a crime, and the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it," he said. "Then the reporter asked me, well, could Governor Newsom or Mayor Bass be arrested? I said, 'Well, no one's above the law. If they cross the line and commit a crime, absolutely they can,' so there was no discussion about arresting Newsom." Homan lambasted the blue state's response to riots against the Trump administration's immigration raids that rocked Los Angeles over the weekend, with some protesters throwing projectiles at law enforcement and torching American flags and cars. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the city in an effort to quell some of the unrest, much to the dismay of Democratic officials.
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Sunny Hostin insists its 'not illegal' to be undocumented during immigration discussion on 'The View'
"The View" co-host Sunny Hostin declared Monday that it wasn't illegal to be undocumented because it's considered a civil offense. "Sixty percent of the American public, two-thirds of independents, 90% of Republicans and just a little under half of Democrats think the crime is in being undocumented," co-host Sara Haines said of Trump administration deportation efforts. "What I'm saying is, a massive amount of this country actually agrees with, not how he's doing it, but what he's doing." The co-hosts criticized President Donald Trump for sending in the National Guard on Monday to help quell rioting in Los Angeles over the weekend. "There's misinformation out there," Hostin said. "Let's axe that right now, because it is not illegal to be undocumented. It is not a crime to be undocumented. People are not illegal." "We need to put that information out there. It is a civil infraction," Hostin continued. Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin pushed back and said it wasn't a broad misunderstanding, referring back to Haines' argument. "I think that 60% of Americans believe it's a civil offense and that if you come here, and you're undocumented, that you should be deported," she said. Haines told her co-hosts that there was more support for deportations than they realized. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has also slammed Trump for sending in the National Guard. "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X on Sunday alongside his letter to Trump. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." Several polls have shown broad support for deporting at least some illegal immigrants. A Pew Research Center poll released in late May found that 32% of U.S. adults say all illegal immigrants should be deported from the country, while 16% say none should be deported. About half of U.S. adults, however, said at least some immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, although they couldn't reach a consensus on what factor should be grounds for deportation. A Fox News poll from October 2024 found that two-thirds of voters favored Trump's mass deportation plan.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007 that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.
