Did John Paul II refuse to take the "Papal Oath"?


#21

[quote=Genesis315]Hahaha, have you been to his web page? The best part is that he was elected by his parents:whacky: .
[/quote]


#22

[quote=TNT]He supressed the Papal coronation (too Traditional) and just had a simple ceremony.
It was to signify a new direction for the Church and a break with the past Church.In how the Church would embrace a new philosophy and a new presentation of theology and finally, how its doctrines would be reformed in presentation toward the modern world.
That is why his Encyclicals are so very different from historical predecessors, and thus so hard to grasp by the average Catholic. They are not based on Thomistic philosophy, but on the philosophy of the 18th-20th century -very much that of de Lubac.
No, the pope need not take the oath, but it was taken for 1,400 years I think, beginning with Pope St Agatha.
It’s what you would call a “venerable custom” which means a tradition of very long useage.
It would be like skipping recognition of Thanksgiving as an American family…

.
[/quote]

Can you give a first hand source for the information?


#23

[quote=TNT]He supressed the Papal coronation (too Traditional) and just had a simple ceremony.
It was to signify a new direction for the Church and a break with the past Church.In how the Church would embrace a new philosophy and a new presentation of theology and finally, how its doctrines would be reformed in presentation toward the modern world.
That is why his Encyclicals are so very different from historical predecessors, and thus so hard to grasp by the average Catholic. They are not based on Thomistic philosophy, but on the philosophy of the 18th-20th century -very much that of de Lubac.

.
[/quote]

You build a great large structure on a teeny, tiny foundation. I don’t know that you can move from the “supression” (it may have been to emphasize simplicity/eliminate the notion of the pope as a king in royal splendor AND he didn’t supress it, as there’s nothing to keep the successors of JPI and JPII, from restoring it) to the embracing of a “new” philosophy. At least, I don’t see how you can authoritatively assert that. I do, however, commend your optimism that the average Catholic understands Thomistic philosophy.


#24

[quote=JKirkLVNV]You build a great large structure on a teeny, tiny foundation. I don’t know that you can move from the “supression” (it may have been to emphasize simplicity/eliminate the notion of the pope as a king in royal splendor AND he didn’t supress it, as there’s nothing to keep the successors of JPI and JPII, from restoring it) to the embracing of a “new” philosophy. At least, I don’t see how you can authoritatively assert that. I do, however, commend your optimism that the average Catholic understands Thomistic philosophy.
[/quote]

Actually, it was first “abandoned” by JP I.
Ok, you may say all day long that the king really did have new clothes and that JPII is a Thomist. It would make neither true.
I have NO authority, any more than a News reporter has Authority toward the events he reports.
I’m just reporting. Then I am offering an editorial based on what I reported. Anyone is free to reject or accept.
For comparatives in Encyclicals and philosophies read the following 2. One By Pius XI, one by JPII, on a similar subject…Ecumenical endeavors:
JPII 1995:
Ut Unum Sint

67 Years Prior
PIUS XI - 1928
Mortalium Animos

Re: Not taking the Oath. From encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Pope

The Pope’s election was followed in a few days by a procession in great pomp and circumstance from the Sistine Chapel to St. Peter’s Basilica, with the newly-elected Pope borne in the sedia gestatoria. There the Pope was crowned with the triregnum and he gave his first blessing as Pope, the famous Urbi et Orbi (“to the City [Rome] and to the World”). Another famed part of the coronation was the lighting of a torch which would flare brightly and promptly extinguish, with the admonition Sic transit gloria mundi (“Thus fades worldly glory”). Traditionally, the pope-elect takes the Papal oath at his coronation, but John Paul I and later John Paul II have refused to do so.

See This encyclopedia also.
Another discussion of the Papal Oath not taken:

Did a little bit of investigating. I would seem that it is a coronation oath, and since Vatican II Popes are not coronated, but installed. The purpose is to show they are shepards not kings. Since there is no coronation, there is no need for this particular oath, which was part of a 6 hour coronation ceremony which was also done away with. It is also why the pope isn’t ‘crowned’ with the triple-tiera any more.


#25

I know that you have your answer to this as indicated in your edit, I just wanted to comment on the way the question was phrased, which is not your fault or anyone else’s here.

The terminology is loaded, it has been set by critics of the church.

It is a straw man, implying that the person does not wish to be held to the principles embodied in the oath. That’s a whole lot of rubbish as far as the Pope is concerned.

Can anyone imagine a Cardinal sheepishly offering the newly elected Pope the document and getting reprimanded? "Away with that, I refuse to take that oath and be bound by it!! I want freedom from those restrictive clauses!!!" hehehe :smiley:

One does not “refuse” to take the Papal oath as if it were something offered and rejected. It’s just not part of the proceedings any more, it is basically redundant and totally unnecessary, so it was retired. As noted above John Paul I didn’t take it either and possibly wasn’t expected to use it. I think that the oath and other ceremonial was somehow connected to the Papal States which disappeared in the 1870’s, only to reappear as Vatican City later.

I don’t know the particulars but it may have been a decision of Paul VI, as these things generally go the Pontiff will make changes to the practices of those to follow.


#26

[quote=JKirkLVNV]You build a great large structure on a teeny, tiny foundation. I don’t know that you can move from the “supression” (it may have been to emphasize simplicity/eliminate the notion of the pope as a king in royal splendor AND he didn’t supress it, as there’s nothing to keep the successors of JPI and JPII, from restoring it)
[/quote]

What does and Oath have to do with royal splendor?..Nothing.
Even if suppressed, it STILL would not prevent a future pope from restoring it. So, your particular objection to “suppression” is irrelevent.
Thomistic philosophy in practical application for presenting Church Teaching is very understandable to the average Catholic.


#27

[quote=TNT]What does and Oath have to do with royal splendor?..Nothing.
Even if suppressed, it STILL would not prevent a future pope from restoring it. So, your particular objection to “suppression” is irrelevent.
Thomistic philosophy in practical application for presenting Church Teaching is very understandable to the average Catholic.
[/quote]

I was speaking of the coronation. There is a difference between “supressed” and “decided not to include.” I also did not criticize Thomistic philosophy.


#28

[quote=JKirkLVNV]I was speaking of the coronation. There is a difference between “supressed” and “decided not to include.” I also did not criticize Thomistic philosophy.
[/quote]

Very well!
If a new Pope does not want all the pomp of a Coronation, he certainly has a right to “decide not to”.
I would however, think he would be happy to take the oath of ,1300 years of predessors. But I really don’t care except for the underlying motive for NOT taking it.
It takes about 2 munites, sans the Pomp.


#29

What could the possible “motivation” be, considering the fact that it’s not in any way binding on the Papacy? You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill, I think. The Oath represents all of nothing but pomp and personal taste; it is no more significant to JPII’s papal reign as it was to any Pope in the previous 1400 years who did take it.

Besides, if he had taken it, it’s not as if you’d reunite with Rome. This has all the trappings of a smoke-screen that hides the real fact that you’ve abandoned the Chair of St. Peter. That’s between you and God, don’t make it about the John Paul II’s personal tastes.


#30

It was to signify a new direction for the Church and a break with the past Church.In how the Church would embrace a new philosophy and a new presentation of theology and finally, how its doctrines would be reformed in presentation toward the modern world.
**
This is not strictly true!

Pope John XXIII said that doctrines would be “recast” not “reformed”.

Anway… It’s important that we all understand that doctrine wasn’t “changed”.

We don’t do that.

Apparently!

Everyone “on message”?

(Where’s my sarcasm icon?)


#31

[quote=Ghosty]What could the possible “motivation” be, considering the fact that it’s not in any way binding on the Papacy? You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill, I think. The Oath represents all of nothing but pomp and personal taste; it is no more significant to JPII’s papal reign as it was to any Pope in the previous 1400 years who did take it.

Besides, if he had taken it, it’s not as if you’d reunite with Rome. This has all the trappings of a smoke-screen that hides the real fact that you’ve abandoned the Chair of St. Peter. That’s between you and God, don’t make it about the John Paul II’s personal tastes.
[/quote]

Actually, and in fairness, TNT is a Catholic in communion with the Holy See. He isn’t a schismatic. He doesn’t like lots of things, or maybe one big thing from which he preceives lots of little things flowing, but he hasn’t jumped ship.


#32

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.