Posted on 05/15/2003 5:46:00 AM PDT by huskyboy
To the contrary; with glowing affection as Her truly faithful student and successor, to reverently safeguard the passed on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface;
To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as 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 severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess.
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 our self 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 [who] would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or [who] would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture.
[Liber Duirnus Romanorum Pontificum, P. L105, S. 54.]
1. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.
2. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid Sacraments.
4. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament.
6. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
7. Likewise, that the Saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be respected.
8. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given them.
9. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
11. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent.
12. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church.
This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved, I. N.N. do at this present freely confess and sincerely hold; and I promise most constantly to retain, and confess the same entire and unviolated, with God's assistance, to the end of my life.
Didn't JPII contradict this by agreeing to the Catholic-Lutheran Accord?
Yes. But then again, some have said that both he and Paul VI refused to take the coronation oath. I'm not sure if they would be excommunicated on that account, but they've certainly done things which are a break with tradition - which, just like the Catholic faith, is not up for innovation and novelty.
Thanks. That confirms my suspicions.
Why didn't he? That's a good a question. At least the popes before the coronation oath came into existence knew what they were supposed to do. Perhaps this only sets the stage for something else to come: the tiara has not been worn by a pope for some 30 years or something.
And he probably knows that violating an oath is a grave sin. . . this is a good topic to research.
St. Peter didn't wear a tiara, either.
Paul VI retired the tiara to a museum, where it belongs, with lace surplices, buskins, white gloves, and $10,000 ruby rings.
I've read that, too, but who would buy a papal tiara?
A wealthy, ambitious monsignor, perhaps?
So, what's that supposed to mean? I guess you'd prefer seeing a table in the front instead of an altar because they allegedly didn't have altars back then.
Paul VI retired the tiara to a museum, where it belongs, with lace surplices, buskins, white gloves, and $10,000 ruby rings.
Again, I note that is sets the stage for something else to come. You know, they're already redefined the papacy through a heretical concept called collegiality. Since when did this mean that the Vatican has to answer to the bishops? That's not in accordance with Church teaching or tradition.
Not prefer it, but it served the Lord and His Apostles well, and the early Church managed to rough it without plaster seraphim and candelabra.
You know, they're already redefined the papacy through a heretical concept called collegiality.
It's not heretical, it's organizational. The Pope still stands at the head of the Church.
If collegiality hadn't come along, it would have devolved naturally.
If so, why did he oppose receiving Communion in the hand, and then cave into the bishops? The same situation was true of altar girls. See, that has no precedent in tradition. And yet John Paul II caved into that at all.
In practice, your statement seems to be veering toward false.
Communion in the hand can be traced back to Our Lord Himself. It's an option; those who don't want to receive that way, don't have to.
The same situation was true of altar girls. See, that has no precedent in tradition.
You're against all women in the sanctuary, unless they're on their hands and knees scrubbing the floor.
Air conditioning in Churches wasn't part of tradition either, but we seem to have it everywhere.
What's the difference between Him and the rest of us? You might want to answer some questions about this matter. Keep in mind the late Mother Theresa disapproved of communion-in-hand.
You're against all women in the sanctuary, unless they're on their hands and knees scrubbing the floor.
I've never seen housecleaning going on in the chapel, but that doesn't change the fact that the priest saying/singing Mass and the altar servers assisting him are the only ones allowed in the sanctuary during Mass.
Air conditioning in Churches wasn't part of tradition either, but we seem to have it everywhere.
[lol] Newsflash: air conditioning has nothing to do with this discussion. No one seemed to have a problem with fitting it into proper church architecture anyways.
Still didn't answer my question on why the pope always caves in, since you say he's the Supreme Legislator in the Church.
We simply have no further basis on which to have any meaningful discussions. Anyway, some of us have been through the very things you're bringing up with ultima ratio to the point of nausea.
You're not going to change your views, and I'm not going to change mine, so what's the point?
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.