Did John Paul II refuse to take the "Papal Oath"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alterum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alterum

Guest
According to Wikipedia:
It is stated that Pope Paul VI (r: 1963-1978) abandoned the wearing of the papal crown (called the papal tiara) and that no true pope would have refused to wear the traditional symbol of the papacy. It is also noted that Pope John Paul I (r: August-September 1978) abandoned the Papal Coronation and that Pope John Paul II (r: 1978-present) declined to take the papal oath.
Click to expand...
This is under the entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

What do you make of it? Is it even true?
 
If they refuse to do those things, then how can they become Popes?
 
The following is the Coronation oath.

"**I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; **

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; **to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, **because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

**I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. **

**I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. **

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, **We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it Ourselves **or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
 
40.png
Asimis:
If they refuse to do those things, then how can they become Popes?
Click to expand...
The fullness of their authority devolves upon them the moment they accept election, unless they have not yet been ordained a bishop. If not, they are immediately ordained a bishop and then they possess the fullness of the authority that Christ gave to Peter, over the whole Church. Nothing else is needed.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
The fullness of their authority devolves upon them the moment they accept election, unless they have not yet been ordained a bishop. If not, they are immediately ordained a bishop and then they possess the fullness of the authority that Christ gave to Peter, over the whole Church. Nothing else is needed.
Click to expand...
So, when did the Papal Oath come into play if it’s not needed?
 
40.png
Alterum:
According to Wikipedia:

This is under the entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

What do you make of it? Is it even true?
Click to expand...
What is there source for this information. Where did they get the idea? They also have other theories like the Syrie theory where they claim that Paul VI was not the true pope that was elected. I would like to know how they know this since the papal conclave is secret and no one knows what happens there.
 
The whole subject is silly.

The only people who seek to make something of this are sedevecantists. It is a fallacious argument.

One is not required to vow the medeival Papal oath to be the Pope, and taking the Papal oath does not make one a Pope. It was dropped because it is unnecessary.

Here is a Pope for those who want one that has taken the Papal oath!

http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/p13-joyful.jpg

Pope Pius XIII !!

In one of his lighter moments with the college of Cardinals (standing, to his left - hope he’s got his red socks on!).
 
Re no true pope would have refused to wear the traditional symbol of the papacy. I am sure that Peter and a lot of true popes after him, probably more than half the popes, did not wear the traditional symbol.
 
40.png
adstrinity:
So, when did the Papal Oath come into play if it’s not needed?
Click to expand...
I would like to know there source for this information. I would say that the papal oath would be done immediately when the pope was elected, but how would these sedevacantists know the pope did not profess it if the conclave is secret and promises automatic excommunication to those who divulge what happens inside.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
The whole subject is silly.

The only people who seek to make something of this are sedevecantists. It is a fallacious argument.

One is not required to vow the medeival Papal oath to be the Pope, and taking the Papal oath does not make one a Pope. It was dropped because it is unnecessary.

Here is a Pope for those who want one that has taken the Papal oath!

http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/p13-joyful.jpg

Pope Pius XIII !!

In one of his lighter moments with the college of Cardinals (standing, to his left - hope he’s got his red socks on!).
Click to expand...
What about Pope Michael, he is the best.
 
40.png
jimmy:
What is there source for this information. Where did they get the idea? They also have other theories like the Syrie theory where they claim that Paul VI was not the true pope that was elected. I would like to know how they know this since the papal conclave is secret and no one knows what happens there.
Click to expand...
Wikpedia was explaining the position of some Sedevacanteists. They are a trip.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Wikpedia was explaining the position of some Sedevacanteists.
Click to expand...
Yes, but these sedevacantists have to show there source for there position to be valid.

I have read this arguement before and never seen a source for the information. It is just a little suspect.
 
40.png
jimmy:
What about Pope Michael, he is the best.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, have you been to his web page? The best part is that he was elected by his parents:whacky: .
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Hahaha, have you been to his web page? The best part is that he was elected by his parents:whacky: .
Click to expand...
And my mom’s highest aspiration was for me to become a lawyer.
I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDA’.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Hahaha, have you been to his web page? The best part is that he was elected by his parents:whacky: .
Click to expand...
I have never been to his webpage, but I have read a little about him. I have seen pictures of him standing on his farm by his barnhouse. And standing in his computer room. He exemplifies what the pope is supposed to look like.

I did know that his parents elected him. He is nuts, but hilarious.😃
 
40.png
Alterum:
According to Wikipedia:

This is under the entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

What do you make of it? Is it even true?
Click to expand...
He supressed the Papal coronation (too Traditional) and just had a simple ceremony.
It was to signify a new direction for the Church and a break with the past Church.In how the Church would embrace a new philosophy and a new presentation of theology and finally, how its doctrines would be reformed in presentation toward the modern world.
That is why his Encyclicals are so very different from historical predecessors, and thus so hard to grasp by the average Catholic. They are not based on Thomistic philosophy, but on the philosophy of the 18th-20th century -very much that of de Lubac.
No, the pope need not take the oath, but it was taken for 1,400 years I think, beginning with Pope St Agatho.
In any case, it is way way older than “middle ages” which, today seems to be an epithet toward anything exclusively Catholic.
It’s what you would call a “venerable custom” which means a tradition of very long useage.
It would be like skipping recognition of Thanksgiving as an American family…

.
 
I think we’re getting a bit side-tracked.

Does anyone know if Pope John Paul II did in fact refuse to take the “papal oath”? If he did, why?

I am not contending - nor do I believe - that this would in any way invalidate his papacy! I’m merely wondering.

EDIT: Got that in a bit too late! Thanks TNT. Anyone who can add some information would be appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top