Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40472 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** January 10, 2015, 02:11:02 PM »

Cardinal Oddi:

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/oddi.asp

Quote

Cardinal Oddi, who had a reputation as a conservative, was well-known for his views on the Third Secret of Fatima and for his comments on the 1986 pan-religious prayer meeting at Assisi, which he considered a scandal.

Regarding the pan-religious prayer-meeting at Assisi, that included Catholics, Protestants, Muhammadans, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, Hindus, and various others, Cardinal Oddi said:

“On that day ... I walked through Assisi ... And I saw real profanations in some places of prayer. I saw Buddhists dancing around the altar upon which they placed Buddha in the place of Christ and then incensed it and showed it reverence. A Benedictine protested and the police took him away ... There was obvious confusion in the faces of the Catholics who were assisting at the ceremony.” (“Confissões de um Cardeal,” Interview granted by Cardinal Oddi to Tommasco Ricci, 30 Dias, Nov., 1990, p. 64.)

Of Fatima’s Third Secret, Cardinal Oddi remarked, “It has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church.”

He explained more about the Secret in a March 17, 1990, interview published in Il Sabato magazine in Rome.

“I believe I knew John XXIII quite well” he said, “since I spent a number of years at his side when he was at the nunciature in Paris. If the Secret had concerned realities consoling the Church, like the conversion of Russia or the religious rebirth of eastern Europe, I believe that he would have brought pressure to bear to make the Secret public.

“By temperament he did not hesitate to communicate joyful things ... But when I asked him during an audience why in 1960, when the obligation to keep the Secret secret had come to an end, he had not made public the last part of the message of Fatima, he responded with a weary sigh. He then said: ‘Don’t bring that subject up with me, please’.”

The Cardinal expressed his belief that John XXIII was not receptive to the Third Secret because its message probably conflicted with the dream of a “new Pentecost” that the Pontiff hoped Vatican II would produce.

“What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima?” asked the Cardinal. “The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II... I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself ... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking ...”

PG · « **Reply #61 on:** January 10, 2015, 02:31:00 PM »

Ladislaus - The point of my post was to provide the correct +Lefebvre saying, which I don't think was made in humor. It just had that effect on american ears. And, I am not denying that +Lefebre doubted their legitimacy. I think that he did.

roscoe · « **Reply #62 on:** January 10, 2015, 05:30:01 PM »

Quote

In the conclave that elected Pope St. Pius X, there was external interference as well.

In the St. Pius X conclave, the interference was canonically sanctioned. St. Pius X immediately upon election abrogated this veto power, but it was in fact in force during that conclave. So that's apples and oranges.
[/quote]

Sorry but this is not true. The veto privlidge(sp) was abolished by Pius IX( and all in the conclave knew it). Pius X adds the penalty of ex-communication to anyone attempting it in the future. :reading:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** January 10, 2015, 05:45:40 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote

Quote
In the conclave that elected Pope St. Pius X, there was external interference as well.

In the St. Pius X conclave, the interference was canonically sanctioned. St. Pius X immediately upon election abrogated this veto power, but it was in fact in force during that conclave. So that's apples and oranges.

Sorry but this is not true. The veto privlidge(sp) was abolished by Pius IX( and all in the conclave knew it). Pius X adds the penalty of ex-communication to anyone attempting it in the future. :reading:

Then why did all in the conclave honor the veto?

I've never read this anywhere:

Quote

While some prelates formally protested this intrusion after voting had been in progress, the Ultra Cardinals readily recognized the existing legal right of the emperor. Support for Rampolla dissipated, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X. Abolition of the veto right was one of the new Pope's first official acts.

Cantarella · « **Reply #64 on:** January 10, 2015, 06:38:39 PM »

Quote from: Nado

As for simony, Pope Julius II who legislated simony invalidating an election, came after Alexander VI died.

That is not true. That law about simony was made long before Alexander VI died. It was Pope Callistus II at the Lateran Council I, held about 500 hundred years before Alexander VI who stated:

Quote

Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:

“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.'” (Denz. 359)

Yet Cardinal Borgia was elected pope! And he became the Pontiff as Alexander VI. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history. This demonstrates that, no matter what canons exist about heretics or ecclesiastic censures, the same rule applies throughout the Church's history: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”