Catholic-Orthodox Theological Talk to Resume This Fall

Frightening!

"Really?
The same oath as was employed by the Orthodox popes of Rome in the 7th century? If so, did Pope Gregory XIII take this very same oath? Pope Pius IX, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II (Linked article claims he did not.)?"

The oath which Benedict XVI took is not the same one used in the old coronation ceremonies. It had strong overtones of the papal monarchy which he has been going to great lengths to repudiate. I am not certain of the exact wording of the oath currently used, but the rites for the installation of the Bishop of Rome have been greatly modified since 1978. Although he set aside the crown Paul VI actually issued an apostolic constitution which mandated that his successors be crowned. However John Paul I simply and flatly refused to go through with it. John Paul II also refused. There is an excellent article on the subject of the traditions surrounding the coronation of the Pope's which can be found HERE. Although many conservative Catholics would like to see the old ceremony of the coronation restored, I for one say good riddance. It is a reminder of a period when the See of Rome unjustly claimed powers and authority which it did not have and abused its authority in pursuit of temporal power and glory. On a side note the website you referenced appears to be run by someone who is very probably a sedei vacantist (spelling?). These are people who subscribe to rather bizarre theories trying to justify their belief that the Pope is not in fact the Pope. This has to do with their complete rejection of the Second Vatican Council and all of its reforms, but most especially the reform of the western rite of the liturgy. Many Catholics (including me) have expressed as a private opinion the belief that the reformed liturgy is manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace. But that is not the same thing as saying that the current rite of the mass is actually invalid and there has been no pope since Pius XII as many of these people claim. It has long been part of their crazy conspiracy theory that Blessed John XXIII was a free Mason and therefore incurred excommunication. As such they argue he could not have been elected Pope. However this is simply no credible evidence to support this charge (of being a Mason). Others of the same ilk believe it is plot by the world wide Jewish conspiracy to destroy the church and still others claim it is a combination of the so called Elders of Zion and the Free Masons. I like to think of these people as followers of the Oliver Stone school of theology. Its all a vast conspiracy. The full text of the of the coronation oath of the Popes is as follows (note the claims to being God’s Vicar).

"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 ordinances 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 the 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."

OOOps forgot another part of your question. It is my understanding that all of the pre-Vatican II Pope's did in fact take the oath prescribed by custom at their formal coronation. Not to have done so would have been pretty unthinkable.

The Papal Oath you link to is the "updated" version of the 11th century. Previously, it had included different material, including the anthametization of Honorius.

Thanks for the information. I was more interested in the oath than in the crowning aspect. In Orthodox ecclesiology, if a bishop slides off into heresy by saying or doing something against the Tradition "with bared head" (Someday someone will explain that phrase to me.), he is no longer a bishop. Nothing formal is required and no charges need be filed, but his flock is no longer required to follow him. It goes without saying, of course, that it had better be pretty serious stuff if any layman or priest takes it into his head to not follow his bishop.
Interestingly, looking East of the Adriatic, there has indeed been an Anglican/Masonic conspiracy, or there certainly was one in Greece 1920-1924. The central figure in the conspiracy on the Anglican side was the then British Foreign Secretary and on the Masonic side, Meletios Metaxakis (with ten other Greek hierarchs) and the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venezelios. The evidence and the results of this conspiracy are described and laid out with rock solid references in a book published in Boston in 1998 and sold through the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM, q.v. To inquire, go to http://www.thehtm.org/

Hermann,
How does the jec1ny version (above) compare to the 11th century version you mentioned as to the Pope being God's vicar? Was that in the oath in the 11th century? When did it become a part of the oath?
I wonder how Pope Gregory XIII rationalized his new calendar & paschalion in 1582 after having taken the above referenced oath or something very similar thereto. Before 1752, in England, Protestants had a field day with that. The Puritans gleefully quoted from the Book of Daniel: "And he [Antichrist] shall...think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Dan 7:25 AV). After 1752, of course, the Puritans found they had to drastically adjust their thinking.
Graves