Pope Leo XIV presided over his first Holy Thursday as pontiff in Rome, celebrating the Chrism Mass in the morning and the Mass of the Lord’s Supper in the evening, in continuity with Catholic Holy Week practice. Both opposition and government‑aligned outlets agree that he washed the feet of 12 priests, including at least one in a wheelchair, and explicitly framed the gesture as one of humility and service, set against worldly logics of power and domination. They concur that he spoke about the need to imitate Jesus’ example of service, rejected images of power based on domination and violence, and situated the liturgies within the broader Paschal Triduum, with reference to other key celebrations he will lead, such as the Way of the Cross.

Coverage from both sides also agrees on the basic theological and institutional context: Holy Thursday marks the beginning of the Paschal Triduum, with the Chrism Mass focused on consecrating sacred oils and the renewal of priestly promises, and the evening Mass recalling the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist and the priesthood, and the commandment of fraternal love. Both describe the washing of feet as a reenactment of Jesus’ gesture that symbolizes purification, service, and the rejection of arrogance, and note that Leo XIV builds on recent papal traditions while adding his own emphases on humility, reconciliation with past distortions of mission, and the “revolutionary” power of unarmed love.

Areas of disagreement

Tone and framing of crisis. Opposition sources frame Leo XIV’s homilies mainly as a positive, inward-looking call for the Church to renounce arrogance and domination, stressing conversion of ecclesial mentality and mission. Government-aligned outlets, by contrast, foreground his lament over a “humanity on its knees” under brutality, using his words to highlight a wider civilizational or social crisis that transcends strictly ecclesial concerns. While both recognize his critique of domination, the former treats it as self-critique of the Church’s past and present, whereas the latter casts it more as a diagnosis of global disorder affecting society at large.

Focus of the message: Church self-reform vs. social commentary. Opposition coverage dwells on Leo XIV’s insistence that evangelization must abandon strategies of control, re‑read history, and repair damage caused by past logics of dominion, effectively underlining an agenda of Church self-reform. Government-aligned reports instead reduce the ecclesial self-examination and highlight his summons to imitate Jesus’ humble gesture as a moral appeal to all humanity in the face of violence and brutality. Thus, opposition media present the homily as a programmatic roadmap for a less arrogant Church, while government‑aligned media use the same event to reinforce a narrative of moral leadership in a wounded world.

Interpretation of symbolism and continuity. Opposition outlets stress the symbolism of washing the feet of priests, including one in a wheelchair, to underline themes of vulnerability, marginality within the clergy, and the need for “unarmed and delicate” love, often contrasting Leo XIV’s tone with that of his predecessor. Government‑aligned outlets emphasize institutional continuity, noting his return to celebrating the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at St. John Lateran as the resumption of a papal tradition, and treat the foot-washing primarily as a reaffirmation of the Church’s enduring role as servant of all. In this way, opposition narratives highlight symbolic breaks and new accents within the Church, whereas government-aligned narratives highlight restored customs and stable institutional identity.

Positioning of papal authority. Opposition coverage tends to present Leo XIV as a pastor calling the Church to humility and dialogue, almost decentering papal authority by warning against clerical arrogance and domination. Government-aligned accounts cast him more clearly as a moral authority whose denunciation of brutality and call to service should orient both believers and society, implicitly reinforcing hierarchical leadership. For opposition sources, the pope’s authority is credible insofar as it critiques churchly power from within, while for government-aligned sources it is an asset that legitimizes broader appeals to order, peace, and social responsibility.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to use Leo XIV’s first Holy Thursday to underscore themes of ecclesial self-critique, humility, and a break with arrogant forms of power, while government-aligned coverage tends to elevate his message as a reaffirmation of moral authority and institutional continuity amid a brutalized world.