Posted on 06/08/2011 10:22:37 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
The right claimed by some rulers to reject nominees to Catholic episcopal sees that were not acceptable to the civil government. While the Holy See has never recognized the right on principle, it has more than once permitted the exercise of the veto in order to avoid greater evil.
Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper. (Would anyone like to help with this?)
|
Augustinianism |
Meekness |
Disposition |
|
Pew |
Authentic Interpretation |
Dissimulation |
|
Silvanus |
Sacred Heart |
Bar |
|
Maestro di Camera |
Natural Knowledge of God |
Lollardism |
|
Blessing |
Agent |
Satisfaction |
|
Lapsi |
Trisagion |
Royal Veto |
|
|
|
|
Catholic Word of the Day Ping!
If you aren’t on this Catholic Word of the Day Ping list and would like to be, please send me a FReepmail.
Yup; it was last used in 1903, when Emperor Franz Joseph vetoed, through Prince Jan Maurycy Paweł Cardinal Puzyna de Kosielsko, Cardinal Mario Rampolla del Tindero's election to the papacy.
How's that for an example of what a fount of otherwise worthless knowledge I am?! :)
IIRC, Tindero was a free mason. The Royal Veto paved the way for eventual Saint Pius X to be elected Pope.
As a personal aside, Pope Leo XIII should be a saint. I wonder how his cause is coming along?
Alleged to have been a mason. Personally, I sincerely doubt it.
"As a personal aside, Pope Leo XIII should be a saint. I wonder how his cause is coming along?"
I disagree. I believe he got far too much far too wrong. Then again, I'm an Orthodox Christian and +Leo XIII is not high on our hit parade of great popes, though +BXVI certainly is!
The Royal Veto also was used in papal elections. For instance, Pope Pius IX’s election was intended to be vetoed, but the cardinal transmitting the royal veto arrived after the election so he wasn’t able to impose it in the conclave. Also, in the Conclave of 1903, the leading candidate was vetoed by the Emperor of Austria. The cardinals were fairly outraged by the veto but, nevertheless, went on to to elect St. Pius X. After his election, Pope Pius X immediately abolished the royal veto over papal elections and threatened excommunication to anyone who dared to transmit one to a papal conclave.
“”I’m an Orthodox Christian and +Leo XIII is not high on our hit parade of great popes, though +BXVI certainly is! “”
I curious as to why because I have read so many of Pope Leo XIII’s letters and encyclicals and there are many similarities to Pope Benedict XVI,especially his social teaching
Here is something from one of his encyclicals you might like
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20111901_urbanitatis-veteris_en.html
Excerpt...
Moreover, if We are to speak of Christian issues, the Greek practice of the sacraments has always been approved by Us: in the ceremonies and sacred rites which Greece takes care to preserve spotless, as they have been received from their ancestors, We have always paid reverence to this image of ancient custom and majesty joined with variety. And since it is both right and expedient that these rites should remain as incorrupt as they are, We have restored to its original plan and pristine form the Roman College, named after Athanasius the Great, for students of the Greek rite. Likewise the reverence due to the Fathers and Doctors which Greece has produced, and they were by God’s benevolence many and great, has only increased with time. Practically from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have determined to give greater honor to Cyril and Methodius. It has been Our desire, led by devotion, to make better known from east to west the virtues and deeds of both these men so that they, deserving of a universal Catholic name, may be more reverently cherished by Catholics everywhere.
+Leo XIII’s encyclical, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, was condemned by the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople in the Patriarchial Encyclical of 1895. +Leo XIII’s 1895 Encyclical is to this day used as an example of what Orthodoxy has to fear from any reunion or attempts at reunion with Rome. Conversely, Constantinople’s encyclical reply to this day forms a part of the basis of the Orthodox position in the ongoing discussions about a reunion of Rome with the other patriarchates.
Here’s a link to the reply; it’s worth the read:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1895orthodoxencyclical.html
Despite the comments about azymes, the filioque, and communion under one species only, the real rub for the East was the Pope’s insistence on submission and his universal immediate jurisdiction. That’s where the real rub is today.
“”Here’s a link to the reply; it’s worth the read:””
I read it ,thank you. There was also a follow up encyclical by Pope Leo XIII called “Chrisi nomen”to keep dialogue open .
From the apostolic letter Praeclara published last June, you know that We invited and urged all nations to the unity of the Christian faith. Thus, through Us the divine promise of “one sheepfold and one Pastor” would be realized. You have learned from Our recent apostolic letters concerning the safeguarding of the Eastern Rites that We look with special care to the East and its churches, renowned and venerated by many names. From these same letters you have learned the procedures by which, in consultation with the Eastern patriarchs, We have investigated how to bring about more readily the desired end, namely the union of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches. We do not deny that this goal involves great difficulties. To overcome them, Our strength is not sufficient; nevertheless We confidently judge that the necessary strength of trust and of constancy is found in God. For He who motivated Us to undertake this mission will in His providence certainly supply the strength and the resources to complete it. And this is what We implore from Him, and We exhort all the faithful to also pray earnestly for this. Since the divine help must necessarily be joined with human effort, it is right for Us therefore to expend special care in seeking and supporting whatever seems to contribute to the end We have in view.
3. To ensure that the Eastern Christians who have seceded will return to the one true Church, it is necessary to provide them with an abundance of holy ministers who, endowed with doctrine and piety, may persuade the others to accept the desired unity. In addition, Catholic wisdom and life must be made known and imparted to them in such a fashion that it will fir their national character congenially. Therefore houses must be opened wherever expedient for the sacred education of the youth, a sufficient number of high schools should be available, distributed according to population. Their power of exercising each rite may thus be supplied with dignity. Genuine knowledge of religion, should be extended to all by making the best literature available. You can easily understand the costs of these and similar ventures. You also understand that the Eastern Churches by themselves cannot meet all these expenses. Nor can We Ourselves in these hard rimes offer the help We would like. Suitable aid must be asked principally from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith which We have just now praised. Its purpose is entirely consonant with what We now have in mind. But lest apostolic missions, deprived in part of the aids by which they are sustained, suffer any harm, We must insist that the generosity of the Catholics toward the Society become greater. It is fitting that a similar concern also be applied to the Society for the Schools of the East whose growth We encouraged, especially since its directors have openly promised to contribute as much as possible for this worthy cause.
4. For this, venerable brothers, We particularly ask your assistance. We do not doubt that you, who are so eager to support with Us the cause of the Church, will undertake this outstanding work. Zealously see to it that the Society for the Propagation of the Faith grows as much as possible among the faithful entrusted to your care. We are certain that many more will eagerly give both their name and their resources to this Society if they see clearly its excellence, the abundance of spiritual gifts it has to offer, and the benefits which can now be rightly hoped for the Christian cause. It certainly should move Catholic men to know that they can do nothing for Us so pleasing, nor so salutary for themselves and the Church than to meet Our desires by contributing. With their contributions We can accomplish what We have resolved upon for the good of the Eastern Church. May God, who alone is glorified with the spread of the Christian name and its unity in faith and government, graciously bless Our beginnings and favor Our desires. As an auspice of His choicest blessing, Venerable Brethren, We most lovingly give Our Apostolic Blessing to all of you, your clergy and your people.
“”the real rub for the East was the Pope’s insistence on submission and his universal immediate jurisdiction. That’s where the real rub is today.””
But you don’t seem to have a problem with Pope Benedict XVI
Not at all. He is the one who is looking for consensus on the role of the Pope during the 1st 1000 years of The Church's history. +BXVI is nobody's fool and he clearly doesn't believe that he, or any of his successors, will receive the "submission" of the Eastern Patriarchs, though he can have at least some reason to believe that his position will have actual power to effectuate the functioning of his role as the primus inter pares among the bishops. Metropolitan Zizioulas' discussion of this represents the view of the Church of Constantinople and several others. It may now also represent the view of the Patriarchate of Moscow, though it certainly didn't a few years ago.
http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_9204_l3.htm?id=9204
I see your point,my friend.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following before becoming Pope Benedict XVI
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
Precisely! Do you see how different what +BXVI and Met. Zizioulas are saying are from the position espoused by +Leo XIII...or for that matter and in some measure, from what the Holy Synod of The Church of Constantinople wrote in 1898?
Yes,but I think the dialogue and effort put forth by Pope Leo XIII and the Patriarchs are helpful leading up to this current day dialogue between us
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.