St Pius X and jus exclusivae

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ratio1

Guest
I read that as late as 1903 a Monarch vetoed a Pope candidate. In fact in that conclave it elected our great St Pius X as Pope as the alternate candidate who was the more popular cardinal was vetoed by a king.

I found this astounding and ironic in light of the hoo ha surrounding the Vatican china deal when
  1. Even the Papal office has been vetoed by a state before so what’s the big deal about bishop appointments relative speaking?
  2. The Vatican Vietnam deal has been running for years and no one seems to make a big fuss about it.
 
Last edited:
I started a thread on this 3 years ago. The consensus was that it does not matter. I said okay and went on to live my life.

I do however think it is something to think about and should make some Catholics think further! (AND probably they never heard of it. Which means, please look around what is going on. Even if that is the past)
 
Last edited:
I started a thread on this 3 years ago.
I know…like a good CAF forum user I searched this before I posted. But there was only two replies to your thread so hardly a group discussion. Hence my repost.
 
I read an article about this and other things and the author pointed out that this was a form of lay participation in the running of the Church.
 
True. I had to search it again and turns out it wasn’t three years ago. Although it feels that long.

Personally I think it is very problematic regarding a Papal election together with all the other ways previous Popes were elected up until the conlave became a thing.
 
I think there’s a big difference between a catholic monarch vetoing the election of a pope and an atheistic communist regime picking a bishop.
 
Fair point. Pope and bishop…can’t really compare. Let’s just talk about jus exclusivae in the Middle Ages until 1903 then.
 
Let’s just talk about jus exclusivae in the Middle Ages until 1903 then.
Not sure how established and legalistic it was in the middle ages. There the Monarchs just had a direct hand in the appointment. And depending how noble you are because then they need you as well.
 
If the worst thing that happens is we end up with a St. Pius X for Pope, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. I trust in God to put the right Pope in the Vatican, by whatever means God employs.
 
My point was less pope/bishop and more catholic monarch vs atheistic communism.

Franz Joseph was coronated and anointed in the name of God
 
If the worst thing that happens is we end up with a St. Pius X for Pope, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. I trust in God to put the right Pope in the Vatican, by whatever means God employs.
What little I know about Giuseppe Sarto is that 1. He foresaw the great war when no one else did and 2. He had visions regarding some kind of terrible disaster inflicted on Vatican City that would involve a “successor of the same name,” (Joseph Ratzinger?)
I do not think that he was beatified for nothing.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of how Pope Pius X expanded the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession to much younger children, allowing them to receive the associated graces. Before he did this, one didn’t receive one’s first Holy Communion until around age 12. And dispelling errors such as
the pretense that “the Holy Eucharist is a reward (for virtue), not a remedy for human frailty,” a conceit which is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent that Holy Communion is “an antidote by which we are freed from our daily faults and preserved from mortal sins”
(as Cardinal Wright wrote).
 
Last edited:
In that case it was the Holy Roman Emperor, not an atheistic regime that persecuted the Church.

However, the better parallel would be the 1801 concordat with Napoleon’s France where the state was given the power to nominate bishops (the Pope retained the final power of appointment).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top