For the seventh episode of the PCh24.pl papal cycle are invited by prof. Marek Kornat and Tomasz D. Kolanek. Click HERE and see all published in this chat series
Dear Professor, present we will be discussing Pope Pius II and the "Exsecrabilis" of 1460. Before, however, I would propose that we talk about Pius II. He led a very controversial life before becoming a priest, bishop and yet Pope. His choice as Pope, as prof. Kazimierz Dopróża in the book "The Book of Popes" besides leaves much to be desired...
This is, as was thought in historiography (and inactive thinks so), the first pope to be called the "Renaissance Pope". He did not lead any scandalous life as Pope anymore, but the fact is that what he did earlier does not fit the spiritual life of the vocation. All we can say is that he wasn't the only 1 with these life cards. Eneas Sylviusz Piccolomini, for that was his name before entering the throne of Peter, was a poet, artist, writer. He was besides the first pope to compose his autobiography. He was highly educated and at the same time very... A free life before the election, so elegantly put. He won the tiara on 19 August 1458 – due to serious complications in the Church of the 15th century. It was a Church that victoriously came out of the large Western Schism, but how all mankind functioned in the border age between the ages. Many historians wonder whether it was inactive medieval or modern times. Of course, everything depends on the date we choose between these 2 epochs as a caesura. It is besides crucial to remember that all the cesurias we choose in the form of a circumstantial year are always contractual. As a contractual limit, date 1453 appeared, or the fall of Constantinople and thus the end of the East-Roman Empire. Similarly, the competitive date 1492 is the discovery of America by Columbus and the expansion of European horizons into the world. Finally, we have the thesis that modern times began in 1517, or Luther's rebellion against the Church. Everyone has flaws and advantages. There is no doubt, however, that the 15th century is simply a transitional century, a period of transit from the mediate Ages to modern times. On the example of changes in doctrine this was explained by the historian of doctrine Stefan Świeżawski, in his works. In the period we are talking about, the Church undoubtedly rose from the fall. This did not mean, however, that the peaceful times of implementation of his lofty teaching were coming. Renaissance time was coming. The secularization of the Roman Curia was progressing. It was like the European Courts of that era. I will mention again, due to the fact that it is the essence of our conversation, that the Church after the large Council in Constance, who restored unity to him, faced a fresh threat (and not a tiny one) specified as concilism.
Could you remind our Readers of what concilism is?
In short, it is an ecclesiological doctrine proclaiming the superiority of the council over the Pope, which in the Church has never been recognized as a rightful doctrine. What was that all about, and where did it come from? In the 15th century, the Council in Constance deposed as many as 3 popes—two illegitimate, and this rightful 1 (Grzegor XII), stepped down for the good of the Church. At that time the thought that the council had to be above the pope came. Since Providence allowed specified difficulties that it was essential to do so in order to enable the Church to proceed her mission in unity, there must be something for the sake of the the thesis on the superiority of the council – the College of Bishops – over the Pope, although he is the advanced Priest. This view of course found opponents in subsequent popes after the council in Constance, first of all in the individual of Marcin V elected as Peter's throne by this council in an extraordinary way, i.e. by a 2/3 majority vote. The College of Cardinals and elected representatives of the Council Fathers from all 4 nations (Poles joined the Germanic). Then Pope Eugenius IV fought with concilism. The opponent was besides the hero of today's conversation, or Pius II, even though he was a clear supporter of concillarianism in his youth, and what is more, Cardinal's purple was given by Felix V, the last anti-Pope in the past of the Roman Church, whom the Council of Basel elected to the Throne of Peter, and he did so against the right-wing pope, accusing the rightful pope (Eugenius) of usurping the ultimate power. If Concilarianism had prevailed, it would besides be contrary to the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman Bishop, who could never be a servant of any council. A fresh church strategy would besides be created. In my opinion, it would be unprotected from deformations in the functioning of the ultimate office.
Why?
Because the council is voting. Of course, all rightful council asks for the Holy Spirit's help, but resolutions pass by vote. A consensus of the Church is so needed to introduce a circumstantial resolution, and this 1 is expressed either unanimously or by a two-thirds majority. (The church does not know the usual majority due to the fact that it is not a democracy). Meanwhile, the rightful arrangement of the Roman Church is based on the presumption that there are cases in which the pope does not request to search a consensus of the Church, but only ex cathedra speaks, which much later will be defined, due to the fact that on the Vatican Council I. However, this was not new. It was not something that a German historian said that Catholicism was only created on this council erstwhile the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope was proclaimed, thus creating a breach in Christianity. That's not true! For it is known that the primacy of the Roman Bishop developed organically as an thought for centuries and reached the summit and finale in the form of a constitution PastorAethernus And the Vatican Council.
If concillarianism prevailed, then then teaching the Roman Bishop ex cathedra would be either impossible, either unimaginable, or unnecessary. The Pope would be the first among the bishops of the world. He would govern the Church, but any basic provisions, whether systemic or dogmatic, or moral, would require constant convocation of councils, seeking consensus, voting, etc.
It is easy to announcement that in an increasingly many episcopal of the Church it would be easy to have divisions, differences or divisions. It is worth noting that in the 19th century there were 500—700 bishops in the Church. During the Second Vatican Council – 2500. Currently, 5 thousand. That says something.
Or were the supporters of the explanation of conciliarism afraid that there would be a repeat of the 7th century and pontificate of Pope Honorius? That the Pope would compose a private letter to be received as the voice of the full Church...
An example of Pope Honorius I, who made an unfortunate mistake, although it was not teaching excathedra, was utilized in the 15th-century conflict of concilism. Later this case was besides used, for example, during the First Vatican Council during discussions on the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope supported a explanation of 1 will (not 2 – divine and human) Jesus, which is called the heresy of monoteletism. The Council of Constantinopolitan (680-81) condemned this position. Honorius I, however, did not give any of his own ideas, but sent a letter to the professing monoteletism of the patriarch Constantinople Sergius, active in a dispute with the righteous patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. It can be said, at most, that the Pope adhered to heresy by indifference, with 1 gesture. surely there is no reason to claim that there was a self-intentional, deliberate and planned heretical teaching by the Bishop of Rome.
The primacy of the Roman Bishop, as it is defined on the First Vatican Council in the form of extremist denial of concilism, is, in my opinion, a better solution than what is offered by concilism. However, the church was thus secured. The Pope cannot stray, unless it is simply a usurper, or a man who has fallen into heresy, or is elevated to office by forces of darkness. But then the question of the legitimacy of his mission is immediately raised. The Pope, however, while following the tradition of which he is simply a servant, cannot stray, and this is simply a guarantee, citing Jesus Christ and His promise to the Apostle Peter, that the "hell gates" of the Church "will not prevail."
I might add that concillarim was invoked during debates around the Second Vatican Council in the 20th century. There was even an thought about which red wrote. Jerzy Turowicz of his time, so that the council opened by Pope John XXIII would no longer close, but proceed it indefinitely. That would be a terrible thought for decomposition. Fortunately, the later Pope Paul VI, or cardinal. Montini, despite all the very dubious moves and even more dubious governments, has ruled that it is absolutely impossible that the Council should be finished and closed.
The conclave that chose the cards. Piccolomini first made the decision to establish a "election capitulation" which would oblige the recently elected pope to consult the College of Cardinals on all matters concerning the filling of ecclesiastical positions including the preservation of the number of cardinals specified at the Council of Constance. How do I interpret that? Was the Pope to share authority with the College of Cardinals? The Cardinal's College was expected to be a body advising the Pope? What would happen if the Pope reported his candidates for cardinals and the College of Cardinals said "NO"?
I will effort to answer, though you have raised quite a few questions. The thought of election capitulation at the election of the Pope appeared for the first time in 1352 – i.e. during the Avinion captivity. The first was the surrender. Innocent VI was chosen. The French had complete dominance at the College of Cardinals. But the Papacy was weakened after all. There were so opportunities for innovation specified as election capitulation.
An effort has been made here to influence the elected pope by limiting the primacy of his authority by introducing the rule of consultation of the programming provisions.
Fortunately, there has never been enforcement of election surrenders from the elected pope. Furthermore, Innocent VI immediately declared his commitments as outstanding and invalid. By accepting specified practices, there would already be a clear example of conduct that would lead him to be an authoritative whose power is very limited. It would be a step towards something like modern constitutional monarchs. Does the British King regulation anything? Nope. It is of course ex ofifcio Chief of Armed Forces, he accepts letters of credentials of abroad ambassadors, makes abroad visits but does not rule. Bringing the papal election to the function of a contract between the Pope and the cardinals electing him would most likely open the way to the next steps limiting his power. We must be aware that Cardinalial nominations are not the only authority of the pope. There are many others, specified as the calling of congregations, the making of various doctrinal decisions, and moral decisions, etc.
As regards the question, what would happen if “the pope reported his candidates for cardinals, and the College of Cardinals said < < < < < >” – 1 could say first of all that it did not happen so far. The Pope himself, without consulting anyone, uses his powers of power and creates a cardinal whomever he wishes. It was very frequently that the cardinals became unworthy of e.g. nepotites, or from the pope's family, which is not worthy of praise. Notabene The ceremonial appointment of cardinals provides for a kind of motion that suggests as if the Holy College gave the cardinals already holding these offices approval to choose fresh ones. The Pope consistors and the Pope asks in Latin a question to cardinals who already hold their dignity “Quid vobis vidatur?” or “How do you see it?”. He reads the names of candidates and the titles of their churches in Rome in Latin. The Cardinals, however, do not then start discussions with the Pope. There's no way they're going to ask the pope about any of the candidates, but they're somewhat lifting red hats, which means agreeing to a question asked by the pope. The ceremony speaks its own, but in fact the pope is not bound by anyone's opinion erstwhile calling to Cardinal's purple. The introduction of a procedure to establish the work to consult cardinals at the appointments of fresh members of the Holy College would most likely be the beginning of the process of the abolition of the papal authority, the process leading to the making of the Pope, uglyly speaking, "the president of the Church". What you quoted in your question is yet an asumpt to another reflection, namely to say that the transition of this innovation would have established the rule of concluding conventional pacts with the Pope as in the First Republic contained the noble elite of the nation with a candidate for king. Sobieski, for example, committed to regaining the Podolski Stone. Another king committed to the liberation of Infinant, and all elective monarchs to keep tolerance for heretics in the name of the rule of spiritual peace, which was proclaimed by the Warsaw Confederation (1573) so that there would be no civilian war.
These are very dangerous ideas from the days of conciliarism, which may have shaken the Church, but fortunately the Church came out of it. Remember that the Pope can commit himself to anything, but then, erstwhile he gains office, he is bound to nothing and no 1 can justice him on earth due to it. Therefore, he can free himself from specified obligations citing the fundamental rule that the Roman Bishop is the origin of all authority in the Church. I think this is the key to this case.
The future Pope Pius II supported the "electoral capitulation", all her points in which we read about the issues of crusades, taxes etc. It's a substance of separate discussion, and possibly 1 day we can have it. I'd just like to ask here if akin situations have happened in the future? Did the College of Cardinals later besides prepare "election capitals"?
As I mentioned, this customized begins in the mediate of the 14th century. The impulse for this innovation, which the mediate Ages did not know, was to effort to guarantee before the election of the pope his warrant that he would not appoint cardinals to offset the full advantage of the French. And as in history, precedent is then imitated, so it becomes a custom. This was the way the popes contained election surrenders after the anomaly of the Avinion Papacy was eliminated.
Let's get back to the conclave. Cardinal Piccolomini, knowing that he had a chance to become Pope, began buying positions in the Roman Curia. At first glance, it seems unthinkable. The future Pope, what to say, practiced political corruption, in the kind of "vote for my position." To be honest, I don't have the words of defence for specified behavior. What is your opinion, Professor?
There's nothing to defend. This is reprehensible and scandalous. Worse, the card. Piccolomini was not the only 1 in Papacy past who did this. It is accepted in historiography that undoubtedly the evil pope as a priest and shepherd, although prominent politician and man who tried to strengthen the Church, but leading immoral individual life, or Alexander VI (Rodrigo de Borgia) before the conclave, managed to bribe at least a 3rd of cardinals. Another 3rd were his supporters – mostly Italian cardinals. specified conduct gave him authority in 1492.
There is no way to defend it and it cannot be defended, due to the fact that in this way we will adopt the rule that everything that happened in the Church was good, right and just and there will always be any gate to explain and support it.
Pius II was surely no exception in this respect. Unfortunately.
Pius II inactive as a cardinal. Piccolomini was to be profoundly moved by the fall of Constantinople. Very frequently in common history, in the past taught in schools the fall of Constantinople is limited to the statement: it occurred in 1453 and so on. Could you describe how he reacted to this event, the Western world? Did the fall of Constantinople origin the thought of a crusade to be reborn?
It should start with the fact that Europe saw the Turks on the Old Continent in the mid-14th century. Constantinople was not of course captured then, inactive existed the Byzantine Empire. The Turks crossed the straits and entered the European continent. The church was divided and the Papacy greatly weakened as a consequence of its transfer of Avignon and dependence on France. Under specified circumstances, Papacy could not do much in the function of perpetrator. I'm talking about a defence war against Muslim Gentiles.
The conflict of Nicopolis took place in 1396, erstwhile the Christian fleet suffered a devastating defeat in clashing with Turkish forces. And in the early 15th century, the accidents took place in specified a way that the Turkish expansion temporarily went out. The Turks had plans to decision faster into Europe, but they began to brake, due to the fact that they suffered a severe defeat of "tooks to the back" from Timur Chrome, more known as Tamerlan, or Mongols. The conflict of Ankara, or today's capital of Republican Turkey in 1402, was bloody and brought a crushing defeat to the Turks. Later, however, there was a reconstruction of Turkish forces and the breakdown of the Mongol Empire, which meant that the Turks did not gotta number on the anticipation of another blow to the back. The Turks are hitting harder. This is the Varna question. Our young King Władysław Jagiellończyk – after the union of the individual kingdoms of Poland and the Hungarian kingdom and the first military successes – decided to negociate peace. To this day, it is not known whether there was peace or truce, or peace, but not ratified by the Polish monarch, as Prof. Oskar Halecki, 1 of the most prominent Polish historians believed. Anyway, I'm under the influence of a card. Cesarini – the papal legate – the Polish king either broke up the talks, either did not ratify the peace treaty, or even trampled on the peace already concluded and went to Varna, deceived by the mirage of large success. At 1 point in the battle, King Władysław gave orders to storm Polish-Hungarian riding on Turkish rolling stock, which resulted in a catastrophic defeat. Cesarini fell, Hungarians with the Hunyadi magnate (whose boy was Maciej Korwin) at the head barely escaped from the battlefield, and the Polish king was killed. After Varna, as historians accept, Constantinople's destiny was doomed, namely: sooner or later he had to fall. This impressed the Holy See. Pope Eugenius IV sought a union at the Council in Florence and the solidarity of helping the East-Roman Empire from Europe. He managed to enter into a union (1439), but nothing came out of it. Constantinople nevertheless failed to defend itself. We managed to defend Belgrade in 1456 but only for a while. As far as Pius II is concerned, as we left him and return to him, he was a strong supporter of the large crusade, uniting the military efforts of Christian Europe to halt Turkey. In this field, he did a lot, and to this he fundamentally comes down to his political activity. He was right, of course. He served the Church in good cause.
It is worth taking advantage of the chance of our conversation to mention that Pius II sent a letter to Sultan Mehmed II, who remains known. He branded the Quran as a origin of pseudo-revelation. Instead, he insisted that he abandon Mahamethaneism and be baptized as a Christian ruler in his empire. This communicative is not suitable for usage in the propaganda of ecumenism...
Let's now go to the 1460 Exsecrabilis. Let me quote a passage of prof. Dosier’s book: “Pius II excommunicated Sigismund Habsburg, Prince of Tyrol for his hostility to reforms in the Church in Brixen. The Prince appealed to the future universal council. (...) The Pope besides distinguished himself with Dietrich von Isenberg, Archbishop of Mainz, who refused to pay an annate erstwhile he became active with Jerzy of Podiebrads” ...
That is the national king of Czech, heretic.
"Because Dietrich besides wanted to appeal to the general council of Pius II decided to deposit it". In the Bull, “Exsecrabilis” Pius II emphasizes that the pope's decision must not be appealed to future councils. What is it?
That's the key thing. The concept of appeal to the future papal council, which needs to be repeated again, begins with conciliarism. It is simply a deadly doctrine, a poison for the Church. If this poison had not been fought, then there would have been decompression and possibly even the abolition of all authority in the Church. Of course, this would happen gradually, not in 1 attempt, but most likely not in 1 generation. Therefore, the fight against this threat taken by Pius II is something glorious, and it must be stressed that if it were not for the bull “Exsecrabilis”, it would not be worth spending time for his pontificate. But since the Pope faced this very deadly poison of concilianism and presented remedies to this threat, it is essential to talk about it.
For example, you referred to a secular ruler who announced an appeal to the future universal council from the pope's decision. This mostly revolved in the heads of the then hierarchs and clergy, and began with the unfortunate Constitution of the Council in Constance. This council passed a decree that begins with the words “Haec Santa”. It is unfortunately written as if the council organs were both hierarchs, i.e. bishops, archbishops, primates, patriarchs, as well as cardinals, but even the pope himself. Coming out of this everyone who does not like a given decision, who feels hurt by a circumstantial decision – and we must be aware that it is not possible to govern specified a large global body, which is the Church, so that everyone applauds everything – would grasp the thought of an appeal to the future council to get a revision of the decision or judgment. Consequently, all decision of the Bishop of Rome would be treated as something of a temporary definition, although it could not be said loudly, but it would look that way. Conciliarism thus poisons the healthy body of the Church with its ideas, for everyone can say that he disagrees with something, and as shortly as the council is convened, and sooner or later conditions arise that everyone in his opinion the victim will appeal for his own. The Roman Bishop, in his power, would be brought to the admin of the Church.
Let us add that from the age of conciliarism came the conviction that the Council in the Church should be convened as frequently as possible. Of course, no 1 dared to say that the Council must be all 5, 10 or 20 years, but that it should be convened as frequently as possible and that it should be held as frequently as possible and have as many problems on its agenda as possible. In this way, everyone could hope that he would inactive live to see the Council, ask for his reasons, appeal to the “highest instance”, and this instance would repeal the papal decision, or the Roman Curia, whether it be a judgement or even a resolution of the highest legal rank and promoted “under the ringing of the Fisher”.
I don't think this was about dogma. There is no thought that dogmas are temporary, due to the fact that it would be super-heresy and it would be like all of today. (After all, specified conduct as dogmas are temporary is not alien to our times, but it is simply a different story).
Has this always happened in the past? individual tried to undermine the pope's decision, so he waited for the council to study a problem?
Repeat and specify. This is about the rations of a man who disagrees with any normative decision, not dogmatic one, due to the fact that then we would go completely insane and accept the doctrine of temporary dogma.
So let us presume that individual disagrees with the excommunication imposed by the pope. Would that mean that the general council could remove it?
Indeed, this would lead to this, but in my opinion there were normative decisions in the foreground, namely that individual has a problem due to the fact that it was made public; for he was cut off from the diocese; for he did not agree that he was not called to advanced dignity. On the another hand, the question of whether there were specified practices in the Church is answered: in my opinion, no, and if there were, I do not know them personally. The Florentine Council did not take on a conciliar face. First gathered in Basel, he took that form, but he was dissolved and resumed in a fresh form.
However, we had another problem, or possibly a different approach, or approach to the issue of the canon punishments imposed by the pope. erstwhile the Church of the first centuries was shaken by large heresy, the Council of good was convened. These heretics were besides invited to this council by definition to reconstruct unity and reprove heretics in the Church, and to reconcile the Church. After all, it is not a secret that Arius was invited to the synod (336), although his views were known and subjected to harsh assessment even by specified a large human Church as St. Atanasia and were condemned by the resolutions of the Council of Nice, which was a actual spur of the Church in the defence of the Deity of Christ the Lord. Heretic planned to fake reconciliation under the motto of striving for unity (or otherwise!) , but did not arrive at the gathering due to the fact that on the way he died. In view of the above, it can be said that both those who were orthodoxly faithful to the actual religion believed that the Council would grant them the right, but that was besides the hope of heretics. However, the thought of appeal is of a different importance in a time of conciliarism, and it is not about large matters of division in the Church against the background of heresy, but about questioning the papal powers, questioning them, undermining them, so that in rule everyone can strive to stand on his own, appealing to the council. And if the Council had begun to debate, if any council had examined specified appeals and acknowledged the right of the appealers alternatively than the Roman Bishop, we would have had a immense blow to Papacy and a decisive step towards the definitive triumph of concilianism.
I asked about excommunication due to the fact that in the Bull of “Exsecrabilis” Pius II points out that anyone who fails to comply with what the pope manages will be subject to excommunists, which only the Roman Bishop can remove.
In condemning something, in this case something very dangerous, the Pope cannot do anything another than endanger excommunication. Otherwise, it would be a paper without sanctions. It would have been like in Paul VI. The Pope issued the encyclical "Humanae Vitae", but inactive during his life various people in positions in the Church – even though progressive theologians in positions of lecturers – questioned this paper and even rejected it. The hair didn't fall off their heads for it. No one's been excommunicated due to the fact that the post-socior church doesn't excommunicate anyone...
Except Archbishop Lefebvre...
Yes, sir. The casus Archbishop Vigano has now arrived. I just wanted to add that this is not the way to govern the Church, due to the fact that it will have disastrous consequences – sooner or later, which unfortunately we are unfortunate witnesses today. In those days, however, at the turn of the mediate Ages and modern times, no 1 had any uncertainty that the condemnation of a doctrine must entail the most far-reaching sanctions for the followers of that condemned doctrine, of course if they do not deviate from their beliefs or practices. For the Church never punished anyone for the mistake which he departed after reproof.
There is no uncertainty that concillarim was a breeding of ideas of various writings which were produced in the 14th and 15th centuries, and after Gutenberg's invention in 1450, which is printing, widespread. That's erstwhile the culture was done, which will consequence in reformation. It can be said that 2 events or 2 historical processes paved the way for reformation. Of course, it is actual that the secularization of the Roman Curia and the various unworthy practices of the Church were an asumpt, but the reformation was successful due to the fact that it benefited from the heritage of concilianism and a crucial weakening of the authority of the Papacy as a consequence of the Avinian captivity and the large Western Schism. According to the regulation that in past something always appears out of nowhere, but has its origin. This is how we should look at the Reformation and more.
Can it be said that the thought of conciliarism came back in the 20th and 21st centuries?
For the first time in the past of the Church, the Liberal Council was convened, of course without the awareness of many of his fathers that he would adopt specified a character. I'm talking about the Second Vatican Council. The concept of collegiateism has been implemented, which is unknown what it means to the end, as the metropolitan Genoa cardinal said. Siri. Collegialism is, in my opinion, any kind of slogan that serves to deepen the revolution.
Today's impulse to overthrow in the Church has created not so much concilism as liberal democratism according to the slogan of equality and freedom – without borders of course. So I would be afraid to see an analogy between a concilism which did not proclaim secular regulation in the Church, and conceptualists of today's synodality. I do not hesitate to say that the doctrine of synodity, which is being preached today, is not a resumption of concillarism, due to the fact that this actual 15th-century concillarianism did not presume that clergymen with secular together negociate dogmas, and surely the principles of moral life. That there are laymen and clergymen at the tables, drinking coffee and talking. No 1 preached specified a thing in the 15th century, and if he preached, he would have been treated as Hus would most likely have a trial and execution. It's obvious. What we are dealing with in our unfortunate times is any thought of weakening individual power. To weaken individual power, whether it is the authority of the bishop in the diocese, or the authority of the Roman Bishop – is an thought that is coming back in our times. But again, it was unimaginable for the concilians to negociate with the clergy what we believe and how we live, and it was not possible to break the close relation between exercising any authority in the Church and ordination. Meanwhile, synodity leads to the fact that individual who has no ordination can rule. And if the German concept passes, if the “Central Council” is established in the German Church, which will consist in half of the clergy and half of the secular ones. She'll have real power. Consequently, the laymen will give orders to the bishops, and they will be ministers of this counsel. This is simply a coup the planet has never seen, and it has no precedent. Since the Divine Savior founded the Church, no 1 has thought of doing specified a thing.
But the Roman curia has not been secularized in the last fewer decades, but only in the 15th century. That's erstwhile the laymen started taking over...
That's not precisely what happened. There are respective aspects to this singularity. erstwhile the State of the Church existed, it had its army. The man who commanded the army had no ordination, but could have been a cardinal. The Cardinal is not active in ordination at the moment, but to hold a position on doctrine it required ordination. Leon X, who will be the hero of our next conversation before becoming Pope, was the Chancellor of the Church. At this office, he didn't even request a chance to be ordained. The celebration was accepted only erstwhile he was elected pope. But it is not the same as may come in our time that secular men or even women will hold offices in the church – e.g. bishops' curial Chancellors, or Vatican dicasters.
In the 15th century, there was no way to plant secular offices reserved for clergymen and say that this would be better. It's a modern idea. I don't request to add that highly revolutionary. It assumes a breach of the relation between ordination and the regulation of the Church.
Today there is besides a discussion in the borderline of Sedevacantism that the bull “Exsecrabilis” Pius II is the basis for the annulment, overthrow, rejection of the Second Vatican Council. These people explain that the council opposed the decisions of the popes, and that is why it should be rejected and considered as nonexistent. What do you think?
The Second Vatican Council should be treated as a pastoral meeting, due to the fact that this assembly itself has been defined by its own will. I think that there is area for show-offs for those who want to defend the Church from the threat of the alleged spirit of the council, or, in short, the spirit of the revolution. Bulla Exsecrabilis Pius II only says what it says. According to the historical rule of reading all documents, we are not looking for content that is not there. This is simply a paper that prohibits the calculation of those who search the way of appeals of certain papal decisions, due to the fact that these are unfavorable to them and this way of appeals are found in the council. That's all this bull can be read, nothing else.
On the Second Vatican Council, akin problems were not considered. However, a very skillful thing was done, but it was not done honestly, due to the fact that as we know, the council declared itself a pastoral council, and then it began to be absolutely persecuting those who in the Church refused to abandon the Mass of the All-Times, or those who had reservations about collegialism. These people were punished like those who argue ecumenism, or fraternizing with non-Catholics. There's a large problem here! The Vatican Council II's leadership consists in promising a gathering that will not pass any dogmas, and then the resolutions of this assembly began to be treated as 1 large super dogma. Where is the effective point of support against these practices? – I do not know this, but I am certain that this is not a fair proceeding.
In the book Dogma and Tiara Paweł Lisicki points out that without taking over the throne of Peter by liberals, progressives, etc. the full operation of the Second Vatican Council would not be possible. The Pope was essential here for the revolution to dominate the Church. What's your opinion?
I share that reasoning with a 100 percent. Only in this way could the revolutionary transformation of the Church (the forces working from within). That was the intent of those who prepared the concept of "reform the Church." They repeated the password: Ecclesia semper reformanda, which is of course actual erstwhile it means the will to improve, make and build, without breaking with Tradition. Only that the thought of the revolution was hidden behind this order and call.
Is it not, therefore, that in a sense the popes themselves dug a pit under the Church? As long as we were dealing with conservative popes guarding doctrine, it was fine. Since the Liberals and Modernists sit on the Peter's Throne, and the revolution is accelerating...
I have no uncertainty that pre-conscription popes were not. They didn't prepare the revolution. At most, they can be accused of specified or another negligence in their dealings with those who emerged as a follower of the Church's teaching to a greater or lesser extent. Popes holding the highest power after the Second Vatican Council sought a compromise "between the old and the new". It was a variety of things, but it was a fact to me, uncontested. You don't even effort that anymore. It is as if the Holy See simply led the revolution. What is more, 1 can follow the proposition that consciously.
God bless the conversation.
Tomasz D. Kolanek
