Author Topic: Cardinal Rampolla  (Read 5472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline roscoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7352
  • Reputation: +514/-282
  • Gender: Male
Cardinal Rampolla
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2008, 05:33:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The 'OTO Manifesto' is a fraudulent documet.

    I hope this Forum is beginning to understand that FM's purpose is to destroy the reputations of not only Card Rampolla but Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Cardinal Raphael and Francis Mac Nutt. There is not even a hint of discord between these men that I can find anywhere and it is my judgement that the last four mentioned are a whole lot more qualified to judge the character of Card Rampolla than Mr. Hiembichner or FM or Mr Vennari or Michael Dimond.

    And there is not one allegation of anything Card Rampolla has done to bring discredit upon Holy Church--except 'join the OTO' according to a forgery(masons have been known to do these kinds of things.) Anyone can type up a piece of paper.

    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #16 on: February 21, 2008, 04:07:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would just like to remind anyone in this Forum who may still be believing the absurd charges brought against  Cardinal Rampolla of the following.

    I have posted my research  on Catholic.com, Fisheaters.com and Cathinfo.com not to mention some other websites.

    Througout all of this NOT ONE PERSON has ever come up with ONE allegation of anything the Cardinal ACTUALLY DID  to harm Holy Church. Moral of story====where there is no smoke there is no fire.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #17 on: February 22, 2008, 01:51:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No smoke==no fire. Not one person has ever a specific accusation of any kind against the Cardinal. It is Franz-Joseph that is the Freemason. He is 'surrounded by judaics' according to no less of a source than Mr. Kertzer himself. And because of this Pius IX declared that the 'veto' was no longer of any consequence and was not recognised.

    Fortunatly, the Papacy did not suffer because some ghibbelline cardinals didn't listen to Pius IX and blocked Rampolla.

    In 1914 the situation was different as Card Raphael was 'vetoed'. This time we got a pope who I believe will someday be recognised as an anti-pope.
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Emile

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 839
    • Reputation: +513/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #18 on: June 04, 2021, 11:36:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I posted this previously on catholic.com and fisheaters before I was banned so some of you may be familiar with the topic.

    A nasty rumor that Cardinal Mariano Rampolla was somehow a secret occult mason and in the OTO has somehow been circulating for about 100 years. It started when writer Msg Jouin was fed a forged, phony document cooked up by a cabal trying to discredit the great Cardinal. This is not an attack on Jouin--I am only saying that no one gets everything right.

    Cardinal Rampolla was Sec of State under Pope Leo XIII and arch-priest of Vatican Cathedral under St. Pius X.

    So far as I know, the persons spreading this story(sincere or otherwise) include Piers Compton(The Broken Cross), Yves Chiron(bio of Pius X), Craig Hiembichner(Blood On Alter and other works), John Vennari of Catholic Family News, Lady Queenborough( I think she is mistaken-not malicious), and the Dimond Bros Most Holy Family Monastery.

    This story is very dangerous as if true(which it certainly is not) it completely discredits the character of Leo XIII, Cardinal Raphael Merry Del Valle, St Pius X and Francis MacNutt(Papal Chamberlain).

    The Cardinal was a great man and it is my view that he is being attacked, among other reasons because he and Leo XIII were of the anti-Dreyfus party. The ʝʊdɛօ-masonic clique around Franz-Joseph pressured him to veto the Cardinals ɛƖɛctıon as Pope in 1903.

    Fortunately no harm was done to Holy Church as the administration of affairs was carried on by St. Pius no differently than they would have been in a Rampolla papacy.

    I hope no-one has fallen for this smear on a great man.
    The version that you give would make sense of a detail that I have always found puzzling. The common story has Rampolla as a Freemason whose election was vetoed by Franz-Joseph. But then St. Pius X removed that power for subsequent Papal elections. If the veto power is what kept a Freemason out, why would St. Pius remove it?
    Under your version PP Pius would have removed the ius exclusivae because it was being abused.

    Patience is a conquering virtue. The learned say that, if it not desert you, It vanquishes what force can never reach; Why answer back at every angry speech? No, learn forbearance or, I'll tell you what, You will be taught it, whether you will or not.
    -Geoffrey Chaucer

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #19 on: June 05, 2021, 12:12:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :popcorn:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Emile

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 839
    • Reputation: +513/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #20 on: June 05, 2021, 12:20:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting history:

    Jus Exclusivæ

    The alleged competence of the more important Catholic countries, Austria, France, and Spain, to indicate to their respective cardinal protector, or cardinal procurator, those members of the Sacred College who were personæ minus gratæ, so that, if there was a possibility of one of these becoming pope, the authorized cardinal might, before the decisive ballot, give his veto, in the name of his government, against such ɛƖɛctıon.
    At one time this veto was given orally; later it was given in writing. The cardinal protector, or cardinal procurator, who cast the veto, was, as a rule, that member of the Sacred College who had been created a cardinal at the desire of his government. This declaration could only be made at the last moment, for the reason that, by traditional usage, a government might invoke this alleged right only once at the same conclave, and consequently would not wish to employ it unnecessarily. A veto made after the ɛƖɛctıon was not recognized.

    Opinions differ widely as to the antiquity of this right. It cannot be proved that it is in any way related to the rights in the papal ɛƖɛctıon, exercised by German kings and emperors in the early Middle Ages. Indeed, it was not until the sixteenth century, that the more important European countries obtained larger influence over papal ɛƖɛctıons, owing to the contentions of France, Spain, and the German emperor, for the control of Italy. These governments were originally satisfied with the so-called "ballot of exclusion", i.e., they sought to unite more than one-third of the voters against an undesirable candidate and thus make his ɛƖɛctıon impossible, through lack of the necessary two-thirds majority.

    About the beginning of the seventeenth century, however, in the conclaves that elected Leo XI and Paul V (1605), Spain raised the claim, that it could exclude a candidate by a general declaration addressed to the College of Cardinals.

    Soon after, in the conclaves of 1644 and 1655, which elected, respectively, Innocent X and Alexander VII, and in both of which Cardinal Sacchetti was excluded as a candidate, the term used for this action was Jus Exclusivæ (right of exclusion). This right was, therefore, claimed about the middle of the seventeenth century; later dates suggested, e.g., 1691, or 1721, must be abandoned. It was also about the middle of the seventeenth century that treatises and polemic writings began to appear, in which the alleged right of exclusion was discussed; among such controversialists were the Cardinals Albizzi and Lugo.

    In the following period repeated use was made of this so-called right.

    -1721 the German emperor formally excluded Cardinal Paolucci;
    -1730 the King of Spain excluded Cardinal Imperiali;
    -1758 France exercised this right to exclude Cardinal Cavalchini.
    -1830, Austria against Cardinal Severoli, and 
    -1830, Spain against Cardinal Giustiniani;
    -1903 Austria again exercised this right, this time against Cardinal Rampolla.

    As a matter of fact, no government has a right to exercise any veto in a papal ɛƖɛctıon. On the contrary the popes have expressly repudiated the exercise of such right. Pius IV in the Bull "In eligendis", of 9 October, 1562 (Magnum Bullarium, II, 97 sqq.), ordered the cardinals to elect a pope "Principum sæcularium intercessionibus, cæterisque mundanis respectibus, minime attentis" (without any regard to the interference of secular rulers, or to other human considerations). That he meant thereby what is now known as the right of exclusion cannot, indeed, be proved; according to the foregoing account of its origin such claim did not then exist. Gregory XV, in the Bull "Æterni Patris Filius" (15 November, 1621, in "Magnum Bullarium", III, 444 sqq.) declared authoritatively:

    Quote
    "Cardinales omnino abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus, intendimentis, condictis, foederibus, aliis quibuscunque obligationibus, minis, signis, contrasignis suffragiorum seu schedularum, aut aliis tam verbo quam scripto aut quomodocunque dandis aut petendis, tam respectu inclusionis quam exclusionis, tam unius person quam plurium aut certi generis, etc.",

    the sense of which is, that the cardinals must abstain from all agreements, and from acts of any kind, which might be construed as binding them to include or exclude any one candidate, or several, or candidates of a certain class. It may be that the pope does not even here refer to exclusion by a state, but only to the so-called "ballot of exclusion"; it has already been stated, however, that the governments at this time laid claim to a formal right of exclusion. In the Bull "Apostolatus officium" (11 October, 1732, in "Magnum Bullarium", XIV, 248 sqq.) Clement XII ordered the cardinals in the words of Pius IV, already quoted, to elect, "principum sæcularium intercessionibus cæterisque mundanis respectibus . . . minime attentis et postpositis" (i.e. without regard to the interference of secular rulers or to other human considerations).

    By this time, however, governmental exclusion had long been the accepted form of the interference of secular rulers (intercessio principum) in papal ɛƖɛctıons. It is, therefore, precisely this exclusion which the pope forbids. This command has all the more weight since we know that this pope was urged to recognize, within certain limits, the right of exclusion put forth by the Catholic states; in the minutes of the deliberations of the commission of cardinals appointed to draw up this Bull the right of exclusion is explicitly characterized as an abuse. By the Constitution "In hâc sublimi", of 23 August, 1871 (Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, 1891, LXV, 303 sqq.), Pius IX forbade any interference of the secular power in papal ɛƖɛctıons.

    It is plain, therefore, that the popes have rejected all right of exclusion by a Catholic state in a papal ɛƖɛctıon. Nor can it be admitted that this right has arisen through custom. None of the requisites essential to the growth of a customary right are present; reasonableness and prescription are especially lacking. To debar precisely the most capable candidates is an onerous limitation of the liberty of the electors, and injurious to the Church. Moreover, the cases of exclusion by Catholic states are too few to permit the inference of a right acquired by customary possession. Recent legislation by Pope Pius X has absolutely repudiated and abolished forever this Jus Exclusivae. In the Constitution "Commissum Nobis" (20 Jan., 1904) he declared that the Apostolic See had never approved the civil veto, though previous legislation had not succeeded in preventing it: "Wherefore in virtue of holy obedience, under threat of the Divine judgment, and pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ . . . . . we prohibit the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, all and single, and likewise the Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals, and all others who take part in the conclave, to receive even under the form of a simple desire the office of proposing the veto in whatever manner, either by writing or by word of mouth . . . . . And it is our will that this prohibition be extended . . . . . to all intercessions, etc. . . . . by which the lay powers endeavour to intrude themselves in the ɛƖɛctıon of a pontiff . . . . .
    "Let no man infringe this our inhibition . . . . . under pain of incurring the indignation of God Almighty and of his Apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul." The new form of oath to be taken by all cardinals contains these words: "we shall never in any way accept, under any pretext, from any civil power whatever, the office of proposing a veto of exclusion even under the form of a mere desire . . . and we shall never lend favour to any intervention, or intercession, or any other method whatever, by which the lay powers of any grade or order may wish to interfere in the ɛƖɛctıon of a pontiff".

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677b.htm
    Patience is a conquering virtue. The learned say that, if it not desert you, It vanquishes what force can never reach; Why answer back at every angry speech? No, learn forbearance or, I'll tell you what, You will be taught it, whether you will or not.
    -Geoffrey Chaucer

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26185
    • Reputation: +14890/-3850
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #21 on: June 05, 2021, 07:33:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Rampolla just looks like a Freemason.  QED

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #22 on: June 05, 2021, 01:10:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The version that you give would make sense of a detail that I have always found puzzling. The common story has Rampolla as a Freemason whose ɛƖɛctıon was vetoed by Franz-Joseph. But then St. Pius X removed that power for subsequent Papal ɛƖɛctıons. If the veto power is what kept a Freemason out, why would St. Pius remove it?
    Under your version PP Pius would have removed the ius exclusivae because it was being abused.
    The veto of Rampolla that never was. Actually the alleged veto power( which was always a privelidge(sp?) was abolished by Pius IX-- but he neglected to attach the penalty of ex-comm for anyone attempting it again. It is this final action that was taken by Pius X-- not the abolition itself. Further reply later when I have time. :popcorn:

    It is Franz- Joseph who is the FMason-- not Rampolla
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #23 on: June 05, 2021, 01:19:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And btw-- The conclave was quite aware that Pius IX had abolished the veto because after Puznya opened his BIG  mouth Card Rampolla didn't lose EVEN ONE VOTE ON THE NEXT BALLOT. :fryingpan:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Cryptinox

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 615
    • Reputation: +79/-57
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #24 on: June 05, 2021, 01:35:06 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Prove that Franz Jozef was a mason

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #25 on: June 05, 2021, 02:09:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pius IX would have ex-commed FJoseph for his legalisation of civil marriage but for political reasons....

    FJoseph NEVER LIFTED A FINGER to keep the Papal States from being stolen from Vatican by Masonic ʀɛʋօʟutιօn( Garibaldi, Mazzini, Lemmi, Crispi-- a serb btw-- etc) :sleep:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26185
    • Reputation: +14890/-3850
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #26 on: June 05, 2021, 09:40:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That’s zero proof, roscoe.  You attack people for slandering Rampolla but then slander FJ.  Double standard much?

    Offline tdrev123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 587
    • Reputation: +347/-138
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #27 on: June 05, 2021, 10:15:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pius IX would have ex-commed FJoseph for his legalisation of civil marriage but for political reasons....

    FJoseph NEVER LIFTED A FINGER to keep the Papal States from being stolen from Vatican by Masonic ʀɛʋօʟutιօn( Garibaldi, Mazzini, Lemmi, Crispi-- a serb btw-- etc) :sleep:
    He probably could have done more to help the papal states but he was trying to keep his own empire (of over a dozen nationalities) intact.  2 years after his death his own empire was dissolved. 
    Did the papal states help him when he had his own revolution in 1848?  

    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 532
    • Reputation: +312/-84
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #28 on: June 06, 2021, 12:43:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Written in that masonic, progressive bastion called the New York Times, within a month of the death of Pius X and right after Benedict XV was elected.  Who is their hero?  That "great statesman" - Rampolla. 


    NEW POPE WILL BRING NEW ERA



    By: A Veteran Diplomat

     

    The New York Times

    September 6, 1914



    WITH the accession of Benedict XV to the Chair of St. Peter there commences a new era for the Papacy.  Those who regard him as imbued with the views of Pius X, of Cardinal Merry del Val and of Cardinal de Lai will find themselves mistaken.

    While the new Pope will defer in a measure to those traditions which require that he should, at any rate for a time, he will refrain from making any too ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary changes of a nature to impair the prestige and authority of the Church at home and abroad, changes which would indicate a public disapproval by the new Pontiff of the acts of his predecessor on the throne, there is no doubt whatsoever that his policies will become in due course radically different to those of the late reign.  In one word, the sway of Benedict XV over 200,000,00 Christians who accord him their spiritual allegiance will be marked not immediately, but within the next year or so, by a reversal to the policies of Leo XIII and of that great statesman who was his Prime Minister, the late Cardinal Rampolla.

    In the comments printed in the American newspapers on Friday on the subject of his ɛƖɛctıon, Benedict XV was described as a particular favorite of Pius X and as the most trusted collaborator of Cardinal Merry del Val.  But the new Pontiff as Mgr. Giacomo della Chiesa, was removed by the late Pope from the position of Under Secretary of State, which he held during the closing years of Leo XIII, because he was unable to work in harmony with Cardinal Merry del Val after the latter’s appointment to the Pontifical Premiership in succession to Rampolla.

    Both Pius X and Merry del Val felt that Mgr. della Chiesa was altogether out of sympathy with their views – views diametrically opposed to those of Rampolla, and, moreover, were imbued with the belief that della Chiesa was in the habit of discussing their policies with Rampolla in a critical fashion.  It was for this reason that he was appointed Archbishop of Bologna, in succession to the late Cardinal Svampa, the main object of Merry del Val being to get him away from the Eternal City, where he enjoyed great influence and prestige in ecclesiastical circles, by reason of his remarkable knowledge of the wheels and workings of the administration of the Church, and also because of his mastery of all the network of relations of the Vatican with foreign powers.

    It is perfectly true that Pius X paid him the somewhat unusual compliment of consecrating him himself in the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican.  But this may be construed as having been intended to gild the pill of what was regarded at the time as exile and also to make amends for not bestowing upon him the red hat, to which he was entitled by custom and precedent.  For Pius X was a very kind hearted, benevolent man, and realized that Mgr. della Chiesa, whose piety he admired, but those of whose political leanings he disapproved, was not being treated according either to his merits or his deserts.

    An attempt had been made sometime previously to eliminate Mgr. della Chiesa from the Department of State and from his membership of the Curia, by appointing him Nuncio to the Court of Madrid.  But he declined to accept the office.  For with the Radical Cabinet then in power at Madrid, which was committed to all sorts of legislation opposed to the interests of the Church, he realized that his position at Madrid would become untenable, and that his mission there would inevitably result in failure, in one word, that it would discredit him – which perhaps was intended.

    Archbishop della Chiesa had to wait, indeed, for seven long years until his tardy elevation to the Sacred College of the Consistory held last Spring.  And like Leo XIII, he comes to the Papal throne with the reputation of having been somewhat harshly treated not to say neglected during the reign of his immediate predecessor.


    Pope Benedict, unlike the saintly Pius X, who was a village priest – and who retained the endearing and attractive qualities as well as the limitations of the latter until the hour of his death – is a man of the world, in the very best sense of the term – a man of the world blended with the man of God.  Reared at the wonderful Ecclesiastic Academy of Nobles at Rome, from which so many great diplomats and famous statesman in the world – he spent the earlier portion of his career as Secretary of the Papal Embassy at Madrid when Cardinal Rampolla was Nuncio there.

     

    That was a very interesting time.  It coincided with the death of Alfonso XII, the succession of Infanta Mercedes, and her relinquishment of the throne six months later on the posthumous birth of her brother, the present King.  The late Don Carlos, Pretender to the throne of Spain, and his adherents took advantage of the situation to become exceedingly active, appealing to the well known hostility of the untraveled Spaniards toward everything foreign, against the notion of having the country ruled by the Austrian widow of Alfonso XII as Regent throughout the long minority of her children.

     

    The situation of Queen Regent Christina, indeed, with the people and most of the lower clergy against her, was critical in the extreme, so much so, indeed, that the Conservative Premier, Canovas, voluntarily abandoned his office to the Radical leader Sagasta, and accorded him his support in order to avert a downfall not only of the foreign born Queen Regent, but of her children’s throne.  The proclamation of Don Carlos as King, or of another Republic, seemed inevitable to all impartial students of the affairs of the Peninsula.

     

    If Queen Christina was able to retain her place at the helm of the Spanish ship of State and if she was successful in preserving the Crown for her boy until he attained his majority at the age of sixteen, it was largely, if not mainly, due to the powerful assistance which she received from the Papal Nuncio, Cardinal Rampolla, and in a minor degree from is secretary, confidant, and chief lieutenant, Mgr. della Chiesa.  The parish clergy exercise an immense influence over the masses of rural Spain, and the Nuncio, by preventing the priests of the small towns and villages from giving free rein to their Carlist sympathies and by compelling them to remain loyal to the monarch to whom they had sworn allegiance, may be said to have effectually prevented any Carlist revolution against the young King.

     

    Cardinal Rampolla proved one of the wisest and most sagacious counselors of the Queen Regent, who, when she assumed the reins of government had no administrative experience and but little knowledge of the affairs of State.  It is largely to his credit that instead of taking advantage of her Habsburg devotion toward the Church to push her toward an ultra clerical policy he should on the contrary, have encouraged her to pursue the path of liberalism, thereby consolidating the foundations of her boy’s throne.

     

    Later on, when Cardinal Rampolla became Secretary of State at Rome, he selected his former secretary at Madrid to become his principal Adlatus and substitute in his absence. In fact, Mgr. della Chiesa became completely identified with is chief’s policies.

     

    These, as everyone is aware, were characterized by a considerable amount of liberalism.  They were marked by a suspension of the hostilities which had existed between the Papacy and the French Republic.  In fact, so amicable was the intercourse between the two that the French clergy and people were given to understand by the Vatican that there was no inconsistency between devout Catholicism and good Republicanism and that it was preferable in the eyes of the Church to render obedience to the duly constituted authorities of the land, even if Republican, than to take part in monarchical movements and plots to overthrow the Government of the day.

     

    During much of this time, Cardinal Ferrata was Nuncio at Paris, carrying out the policies of Leo XIII and of Rampolla, and thus Mgr. della Chiesa was thrown much into contact with him and established an intimacy and a close friendship and sympathy of ideas, which have resulted in the appointment of Cardinal Ferrata to the office of Secretary of State, which was vacated by Cardinal Merry del Val through the death of Pius X.

     

    If I lay stress on the association of Pope Benedict with Cardinal Rampolla at Madrid and at Rome and also with Cardinal Ferrata, it is in order to point out that he leans rather toward liberalism than reaction in matters political, and also ecclesiastical.  That he will reverse the anti modernist decrees of the late Pontiff is improbable, at any rate for some time to come.  But it may safely be assumed that he will materially soften what is severe and uncompromising in their nature and favor a more liberal interpretation thereof than has been tolerated until now.

     

    As I have endeavored to point out, he is not only an ecclesiastic, but also a statesman, who, with his knowledge of diplomacy and with his experience of foreign Governments, is able to appreciate that the welfare of the Church, especially in these present times, demands more charity than rigor, and more Christian indulgence than Christian severity.  His policy will so far as can be judged by his past, be one of conciliation, rather than of aggression and he may be expected to seek to attract into the Church those who, like St. Thomas are inclined to doubt, rather than to repel them, because of the difficulty which they may experience in reconciling logic with faith.

     

    Like Rampolla, the new Pope belongs to a very ancient family, having inherited the title of Marquis della Chiesa from a long line of ancestors.  Whereas Rampolla belonged to the aristocracy of Sicily, the new Pontiff is a member of the patriclate of Genoa, where the name of his family has figured for many centuries in the Golden Book of what was once the Republic of Genoa.

     

    Like Rampolla, too, he is disposed to silence rather than to speech, and conveys the impression of never speaking without having duly considered beforehand just what he wants to say.  He is very self contained and unemotional, more so perhaps than any prelate now living belonging to a Church the discretion and reserve of the members of which have achieved a worldwide fame.  He may safely he relied upon to exercise the same wonderful care and patient consideration that Leo XIII was wont to give to his decrees before issuing them and there will be no necessity in his case of having to explain away the terms of an encyclical, as Cardinal Merry del Val was obliged to do on one occasion during the reign of Pius X, in the case of Germany.

     

    Then, too, Benedict XV, having been so long a Prelate of the Curia, may be counted upon to restore to the Sacred College its attributes as Senate of the Church.  Pius X especially during the latter part of his reign rarely consulted its members and they were afforded no opportunity to fulfill their functions as Senators of the Papacy.  The powers and the authority that should have belonged to them were gradually centred in the hands of Cardinal de Lai, a Venetian like Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val.  The result of this was to unite the other Italian members of the Sacred College into a very strong and powerful opposition to the policies of the late Pontiff, which included even those members who were indebted to him for their red hats.

     

    It is this opposition which may be said to have elected the Marquis Giacomo della Chiesa, Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna, as successor to Pius X and as he is known to have been in sympathy with the members of this opposition, it may safely be assumed that he will personify to a very great extent their views, now that they have raised him to the Chair of St. Peter.

     

    What his attitude toward the Quirnale is likely to be may be inferred from the fact that one of his brothers is an Admiral and another a Captain of the Royal Navy, and that the blessings which he bestowed upon the troops who left for the war in Tripoli and who returned at is close were characterized by the most ringing patriotism.  His relations, too, with the Italian authorities at Bologna have been signalized by a considerable amount of friendliness and it is improbably, therefore, that there will be any change in the Modus Vivendi between Church and State that has existed, to the advantage of both, for some past. 

     

    The question is asked as to what the meaning is of the new Pope’s selection of the title of Benedict XV and whether there are any political inferences to be drawn therefrom.  The only reason that I can imagine why Cardinal della Chiesa should have chosen this title is that the last Cardinal

    Archbishop of Bologna was Benedict XIV, who died in1758.  Like Benedict XV, he was remarkable for his incisive intellect, for his profound knowledge of foreign politics and for his experience of the work of the Roman Curia, in several important capacities. He was also famous for his cheerfulness, and his wit, and his reign was so efficient, so popular and so successful in every way that it constitutes an excellent augury for that of Benedict XV.

     











    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7352
    • Reputation: +514/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cardinal Rampolla
    « Reply #29 on: June 07, 2021, 11:19:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for posting this: all should note that the article is Anonomous-- I'll reply more when there is time but for now( as has been posted prev)....

    Pope Leo & Card Rampolla recognised Republican France because the 2 factions( Bourbon & Bonaparte)  were enemies-- making restoration of the Monarchy( in the name of one or the other)) most undesirable. There are precedents for The Church recognising a Republic in the past( Venice, Florence etc) so this does not justify an accusation that either Leo or C Rampolla are ' liberal"... :fryingpan:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16