Papal Coronation Oath

Home Forums All Things Catholic Papal Coronation Oath

This topic contains 13 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  twinc 2 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2137

    twinc
    Participant

    who started and first took this oath and who refused to take it and why ? – anyone know – any comments – twinc

    #10468

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    You tell us.

    #10473

    LARobert
    Participant

    Twinc

    Since there is no agreement among historians over who was the first Pope in history to take any form of Papal Oath, and there have been several versions which apparently have been used, and it is not now nor prior to Vatican II was it part of the official rites of the Coronation of a Pope. Will you define for us two things.

    Which version of the Oath are you referring to?.

    Would you deny the Papacy of all Popes before the 7th Century who never took such an oath, as well as Popes after Pope Paul VI, because they too did not?

    The Church holds that the Oath and the Coronation do not effect the legitimacy of the Papacy. The moment a bishop who is validly elected accepts the office he is Pope, with all the authority of the Office. If a layman, man in Minor Orders, or Major Orders who is not yet consecrated a bishop, he assumes the full authority of the office once he has been consecrated a bishop. This applied before Vatican II and after both.

    #10476

    twinc
    Participant

    are we to deny the papacy of the Popes who took the oath or question their reason or necessity for doing so – twinc

    #10478

    LARobert
    Participant

    Do you? I know rational Catholics don’t deny the Papacy of those Popes who took the various oaths, Nor those who did not. As stated in my last [i:1tkgsapl]Post,[/i:1tkgsapl] the Oath does not make the Pope.

    #10485

    twinc
    Participant
    "LARobert":2mozhfsx wrote:
    Do you? I know rational Catholics don’t deny the Papacy of those Popes who took the various oaths, Nor those who did not. As stated in my last Pope, the Oath does not make the Pope.[/quote:2mozhfsx]
    you are wrong – the last Pope did not take the oath – why not ? – twinc
    #10486

    LARobert
    Participant

    Nope, aside from a typo, where I referred to the last post as the last Pope, I think you need to re-read the posting.

    The Oath is not a requirement for the valid succession of the Office. Unless you’ve made a new requirement that the Pope and the rest of the Church now has to follow.

    Please let us know what conspiracy you think is going on.

    #10489

    twinc
    Participant
    "LARobert":2opzdscz wrote:
    Nope, aside from a typo, where I referred to the last post as the last Pope, I think you need to re-read the posting.

    The Oath is not a requirement for the valid succession of the Office. Unless you’ve made a new requirement that the Pope and the rest of the Church now has to follow.

    Please let us know what conspiracy you think is going on.[/quote:2opzdscz]
    just via google type in [The Papal Oath] and then search Catholic Answers – in passing also see The Oath against Modernism also not taken by recent Popes – twinc

    #10492

    LARobert
    Participant

    The Oath Against Modernism, (Thanks for correcting your incorrect title) was never a part of the Papal Coronation, from the time of it’s imposition by Pope St. Pius X. So it is a moot point with regard to the Pope. It was required of all who entered into Major Orders, and who took teaching positions in Catholic Colleges and Universities.

    I’ve done one better than a Google search which brings up mutliple contradictory documents. I’ve looked it up in my Seminary text books from prior to Vatican II. In the sources on the Rituals and Liturgies of the Church, specifically Pontifical Ceremonials, including Papal Coronations, and in the Old Ceremoniale Episcoporum the Oath is not a part of or included in the ceremonies of the Coronation. While it was taken by various Popes throughout the ages, in various forms, it was not as some Sede proponents assert a major factor, or even a needed portion of the rites. It has only become an issue by those who wish to deny the Papal reigns of Popes John XXIII forward, who assert that they know better than the Church, and define for the Church what the Magisterium teaches.

    #10495

    twinc
    Participant

    so you did not google The Papal Oath at and by Catholic Answers and the w/w internet also – but wish to play at being Pope and judge and jury – The Modernist oath is not the Papal Oath – maybe you would go a bit closer to Rome and tell us about the Vatican Astronomer asked to stand down or perhaps about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as I read somewhere the darling of priests and what he bound together let no Pope dare put asunder – come home now – twinc

    #10498

    LARobert
    Participant

    I don’t chase geese. I go to reliable sources.

    I will go to a source like the Catholic Answers website, (You know the forums there, as you used to post there.) if I need to cut and paste a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia, after reading it for myself from my original set. But tend not to post or take Google searches as reliable, because there are sites which distort the truth, like the Catholic Family News, the Diamond Brothers, the followers of Leonard Feeney, those who support Chardain, or the Radical Nuns, and post non-truths. I verify before I accept Google links.

    You will find among the pseudo-traditionalists, any number of conspiracy clinics, and assertions that are not based in truth, but have taken up a life of their own. That there was on singular Papal Oath, and all Popes from around the 7th Century have taken it is a fabrication, like the allegations that there is a throne in the antechamber in the Sistine Chapel which has a hole in it to confirm the sex of the newly elected Pope, and that he is not a castrati. Such fables are best left to Dan Brown and his highly inaccurate novels. As to the Migne text sometimes cited, I’ve seen the pages and they do not contain the supposed proof. Sadly there are those who chase conspiracies rather than practice the Faith. Worse they promote these fables, and lead many away from the Church.

    #10499

    twinc
    Participant
    "LARobert":ep64eyxm wrote:
    I don’t chase geese. I go to reliable sources.

    I will go to a source like the Catholic Answers website, (You know the forums there, as you used to post there.) if I need to cut and paste a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia, after reading it for myself from my original set. But tend not to post or take Google searches as reliable, because there are sites which distort the truth, like the Catholic Family News, the Diamond Brothers, the followers of Leonard Feeney, those who support Chardain, or the Radical Nuns, and post non-truths. I verify before I accept Google links.

    You will find among the pseudo-traditionalists, any number of conspiracy clinics, and assertions that are not based in truth, but have taken up a life of their own. That there was on singular Papal Oath, and all Popes from around the 7th Century have taken it is a fabrication, like the allegations that there is a throne in the antechamber in the Sistine Chapel which has a hole in it to confirm the sex of the newly elected Pope, and that he is not a castrati. Such fables are best left to Dan Brown and his highly inaccurate novels. As to the Migne text sometimes cited, I’ve seen the pages and they do not contain the supposed proof. Sadly there are those who chase conspiracies rather than practice the Faith. Worse they promote these fables, and lead many away from the Church.[/quote:ep64eyxm]
    so why not go to http://www.proecclesia.com and find out exactly who it is that are leading many away from the Church = wolves in sheep’s clothing – join their crusade to drive out the modernists from our churches and schools where they have been hard at work cheating our children and grandchildren of our glorious faith – join the crusade to restore good Catholic catechesis to the schools our forefather in faith built for that very purpose – as our Holy Father pointed out,too many at present are steeped in the enormous religious ignorance instilled by Modern Catechetics – come home now – twinc

    #10503

    LARobert
    Participant

    I find it interesting that you would post as a support of your geocentric demands a webpage that supports a heleiocentric cosmos as being compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. While the site does have links to potentially dangerous sites like the SSPX in the UK, much of what it discusses is good.

    There has never been as you have presumed a denial that Modernism has been condemned by the Church, nor that there has been a crisis in the Church which while pre-exhisiting Vatican II, flourished with priests and bishops both Arch-Conservative and Liberals, as well as others in the Church abandoning the guidance of the Church, and ignoring the Holy Father. Trying to be more Catholic than the Church and placing oneself as Judge over the Pope is just as dangerous a position as ignoring him. Don’t let yourself be caught on either extreme. Your presumption not simply that you can define who is a hertic, and outside the Church, and are able to understand better than the Pope and the Pontifical Commissions both before and after Vatican II, can dismiss them and impose your own De Fide requirements on all Catholics who need to come to you to. “come home” is a very dangerous thing.

    #10507

    twinc
    Participant
    "LARobert":ci5g8qlj wrote:
    I find it interesting that you would post as a support of your geocentric demands a webpage that supports a heleiocentric cosmos as being compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. While the site does have links to potentially dangerous sites like the SSPX in the UK, much of what it discusses is good.

    There has never been as you have presumed a denial that Modernism has been condemned by the Church, nor that there has been a crisis in the Church which while pre-exhisiting Vatican II, flourished with priests and bishops both Arch-Conservative and Liberals, as well as others in the Church abandoning the guidance of the Church, and ignoring the Holy Father. Trying to be more Catholic than the Church and placing oneself as Judge over the Pope is just as dangerous a position as ignoring him. Don’t let yourself be caught on either extreme. Your presumption not simply that you can define who is a hertic, and outside the Church, and are able to understand better than the Pope and the Pontifical Commissions both before and after Vatican II, can dismiss them and impose your own De Fide requirements on all Catholics who need to come to you to. “come home” is a very dangerous thing.[/quote:ci5g8qlj]
    come home now – begin by giving up attachment to way out,weird,and wacky pseudo science and pseudo theology – modernist or otherwise – twinc

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.