Thursday
Reputation: 482
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 679
|
| jarheadusmc said: | From and to: The Man Who was Thursday.
An excellent short description of the election of Innocent II.
But with some further highlighting -
The position of St. Bernhard and St. Norber that Innocent was the valid pope is based on St. Bernhards testimony that:
1. The life and character of Innocent II are above attack (reproach)
2. Innocents motives are purer/the election was more regular in form/earlier in time
3. The merit and dignity of the electors of Innocent II are of greater merit.
Now: #1 life and character beyond reproach - no problem
#2 purer in motive - ok, nore regular?? - earlier in time??
#3 the merit and dignity of the electors are also beyond approach, etc.
Now: More regular: On the contrary - Pope Honorius made an agreement that only eight of the eligible Cardinals would elect the new Pope, out of 37 total, or there abouts in all, and only 8 of 29 present in Rome. This was uncanonical and a violation of the laws of the Church. What if: Pope Benedict made an secret agreement with eight Cardinals, that when he dies they, the eight, would elect the new pope, eight of his friend modernist Cardinals. Would that be accepted by the Church or would it be a contested election that was uncanonical? That, in my opinion would never fly it would be declared null and illicit.
Earlier in time: Has no bearing or stand in Church law if it was an illicti election.
The merit and dignity of the electors was beyond reproach: This also has no bearing on the election of a Pope. Imagine the can of worms if we judged every election based on the merits and dignity of the Cardinals, especially in the last four or five elections.
What is missing again is that it was known by the "good" Cardinals whose "merit and dignity" were irreproachable, that Cardinal Pierleoni and many of the other Curia were secret Jews. I'm not sure at the time later the canons of the 29 Councils of Toledo forbade ever for a Jew to be elevated beyond a simple priest, who was a convert or whose family had converted previously from Judaism. Now, the canons of the Councils of Toledo are still in force today, however, we have now Cardinals, for instance Cardinal Bea, and others, who were and are converted Jews. Brings up some serious questions.
So, I have no problem with Innocent II being the legitimate Pope - but the circumstances are unique in Church history whereby an election was determined not by the canonical laws of the Church but by the "merits" of the eligible candidates. Unprecedented.
Which brings us all up to date: Considering the above history, the canons of the Councils of Toledo, etc, the actions and inactions of at least Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI - we can see evidence or precedent now for the excommunication of those Popes in the future. Pope Honorius I was excommunicated, not for anything he did or taught, but rather for "not" dealing with a particular heresy then present in the Church, for what he did not do. Apply these same standards to today's Popes. I think we will be, maybe, surprised at what happens in the future as pertains to the condemnation of the last few Popes and Vatican II. |
From what I've read Anacletus II's parents converted from Judaism but it was more than likely a superficial conversion. It was said that Anacletus was ransacking churches and melting down chalices but nobody is sure whether these claims are true. When Innocent II reclaimed the papacy one of the bishops who supported Innocent II caim to him on his knees bearing a cup and asking forgiveness and I guess innocent II walked up and kicked the cup down the aisle.
Innocent also said that all the bishops would be forgiven if they recognized him but he renigged and excommunicated them all. (the ones that supported anacletus).
I think we should treat Bishop Fellay along these lines.
|
|
| Posted Jul 10, 2012, 12:44 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
