If we all just dressed
normal, there'd be no chance of
misunderstanding!
Posted on 04/27/2005 6:55:32 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Actually, I always did like that joke.
If we all just dressed
normal, there'd be no chance of
misunderstanding!
You make a very eloquent defense. I must agree.
What is that? A Freemason? Don't they wear aprons?
I prefer cape, chapeau and sword, m'self:
No, that's not me.
What uniform it that? Is it Knights of Columbus? I know they were a sword. I still do not know what the first picture is? I really do not know. I was raised with a bias about any organization that has secret rites.
The picture I posted is a Knight of Columbus, a member of a thoroughly Catholic organisation.
Seems as good a man as we could have hoped for. Lets see how he follows upon his previous activity and inclinations in the traditionalist realm.
He could do a lot by simply doing follow-up work on JP II's encyclicals. He could validly make the claim of not imposing anything "new" or worse, "old" on the Church.
One of my cousins was an Archbishop in the Vatican diplomatic corps, beginning as a junior attache in the reign of Pius XII and retiring as an Archbishop under John Paul II.
He told us a funny story about the Sedia Gestatoria and John XXIII. "I don't like it at all," he said to my cousin. "It reminds me of a very bad boat ride - I'm always feeling seasick when I'm in it."
And - one of the first acts of his pontificate - again, this is according to my cousin, was to double the pay of the Papal Gentlemen who had to carry it. "It's only fair," he told my cousin, "I weigh at least twice as much as Pius XII !!!!"
I am most interested to see what he does regarding the celebration of the Mass, the encouragement of Latin, and relations with the SSPX and the Orthodox.
"cooperatores" -- Is anybody here competent in Latin and can clarify?
Yes...
"Operator" is Latin for "worker". Co-Operator is therefore a co-worker. Cooperatores is plural, hence, co-workers.
Cooperatores veritatis = Co-Workers of/for the truth!
I like it!
We've disagreed in the past, but of course as a monarchist I'm with you here 100%.
It would do a lot of good for Catholics, and the world in general, to be reminded that the Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.
It would be hard not to see the post-Vatican II popes' renunciation of the tiara and coronation as a reversal of the Church's traditional support of monarchy, which Pope Pius VI had called "the best of all governments." Of all the deplorable changes of the past forty years, after the abandonment of the Latin mass and the sacred music associated with it, this is the one I regret the most.
I too like this phrase, and I'm liking this new Pope more and more as the days go on!
My thoughts exactly.
8-) Thanks for that story.
A Monarchy is a state of government with a single absolute power - Mono (one) archos (power).
If the Church is a Monarchy, it is because Jesus Christ Himself is the King.
In actual practice, however, the government of the Church is not really like a Monarchy as most think of it -an absolute Monarch of the Louis XIV mold ("L'Etat, c'est moi") - but more of a Meritorcratic Aristocracy, with a leading Aristocrat acting as the Royal Regent.
On a secular level, a closer model of how it actually worked would be France or Germany of the period between AD 900-1200. The King held absolute power in his fiefdom, and a lesser collective power over the other nobility in their fiefs in certain matters, but only a power to the extent they are willing to cooperate with the King. To the Church, the Pope has absolute power as a Bishop over the archdiocese of Rome. He has supervisory power over all the other dioceses. But if a Bishop refuses his commands or rebells, like the Orthodox have for example, they are still Bishops of a Church, but now in disobedience against the established order.
The Pope is not a Monarch, but the Prince of Princes in the Church. He is set over the other Bishops for supervision, coordination, and correction, but he does not have more epsicopal power than them - he is still just a Bishop like them. That is why we say he is the "Vicar of Christ". He is acting as a Regent in place of the temporally absent Monarch, the Lord Jesus Christ our King. He himself is not the Monarch.
This should not be confused with the secular monarchical role the Pope played from 754 to 1870 as head of the Papal States, especially in the post feudal age from 1300 onwards. The current Vatican City-State is a hypertechnical "state" that is lacking in real citizens.
Didn't Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) sign the May 5th 1988 document with Archbishop Lefebvre?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.