← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17266 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2005-03-12
2005-03-12 08:47 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=27817]Cardinals, Conclaves and a New Pope [/URL] 03/11/05
Recently, the media has speculated on the health and condition of Pope John Paul II, and on his death. When our Holy Father dies and goes to his heavenly reward, how will the next pope be elected?
The procedure for electing the pope has evolved over the history of the Church. In the early centuries, the clergy and people of Rome elected the successor, who usually had worked very closely with the previous pope. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II further regulated the process of electing the pope, making the cardinals the papal electors. In more recent times, all of the popes since Pope St. Pius X (except Pope John Paul I) have refined the election process, in particular Pope Paul VI in the apostolic constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo (1975) and Pope John II in the apostolic constitution Romano Dominici Gregis (RDG) (1996). However, as Pope John Paul II stated, "I have been careful in formulating the new discipline not to depart in substance from the wise and venerable tradition already established."
The cardinals are entrusted with the responsibility of electing the Successor of St. Peter ("Code of Canon Law," No. 349). They first of all represent the universal Church since they come from every inhabited continent. Secondly, each cardinal is linked to the Diocese of Rome either as the titular head of a Church in Rome with the title of Cardinal Deacon or Cardinal Priest; or as one of the six titular bishops of the suburban sees of Rome or as one of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each with the title Cardinal Bishop.
Presently, the number of cardinal electors is 120. As Pope John Paul II expressed, "In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the college of 120 electors, made up of cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures." However, those cardinals who celebrate their 80th birthday the day before the Apostolic See becomes vacant (due to the death or resignation of the reigning pope) do not participate in the election of the new pope (RDG, No. 33). (At this writing, 118 cardinals are eligible to vote for the next pope.)
Given this background, when the pope dies, there is a nine-day period of mourning, during which time the prescribed funeral rites are performed. Unless there are special reasons, the deceased pope is to be buried between the fourth and sixth day after death. At least 15 days after the death of the pope and not more than 20, the cardinals assemble at the Vatican (No. 37, 41). They reside at St. Marthaââ¬â¢s House, a guest facility within Vatican City, close to St. Peterââ¬â¢s Basilica. (In recent times, the cardinals resided in very spartan, makeshift sleeping quarters around the Sistine Chapel.)
The deliberations and voting take place in the Sistine Chapel. Pope John Paul II decreed "... that the election will continue to take place in the Sistine Chapel, where everything is conducive to an awareness of the presence of God, in whose sight each person will one day be judged" (Introduction). (Remember that Michelangeloââ¬â¢s soul-penetrating Last Judgment adorns the back wall of the Sistine Chapel.)
The conclave must operate without any outside interference. Only authorized individuals are allowed access to St. Marthaââ¬â¢s House and the Sistine Chapel. No one is allowed to approach the cardinal electors as they travel between St. Marthaââ¬â¢s House and the Sistine Chapel (No. 43). All unauthorized people are forbidden to communicate in any way with the cardinals (No. 45).
Also, the strictest secrecy must prevail during the conclave. Pope John Paul II asserted, "I further confirm by my apostolic authority the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself" (Introduction). Therefore, the cardinal electors individually take a solemn oath to observe the regulations promulgated in Universi Dominici Gregis and to maintain secrecy during and after the election "regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election" (RDG No. 53). The cardinals are forbidden "to communicate ââ¬â whether by writing, by telephone, or by any other means of communication ââ¬â with persons outside the area where the election is taking place" (No. 44, 53). Moreover, they are forbidden during the conclave to read newspapers or periodicals, to listen to the radio, or to watch television (No. 57). Any violation of secrecy will result in "grave penalties," including excommunication, as judged by the reigning pope (No. 55).
Moreover, prior to the election, "careful and stringent checks must be made with the help of trustworthy individuals of proven technical ability in order to ensure that no audiovisual equipment has been secretly installed in these areas for recording and transmission to the outside" (No. 51). "All technical instruments of any kind for the recording, reproducing, or transmitting of sound, visual images, or writing" are forbidden (No. 61).
There are good reasons for all of these regulations, especially in our age of intrusive media and paparazzi. The great historical example that inspired many of these regulations concerns the conclave of 1268. When Pope Clement IV died that year, the cardinals met at the papal palace at Viterbo, Italy. Due to political pressures, they could not decide on a pope for three years. Eventually, they were "locked-up," with "marshals of the conclave" appointed to prevent them from leaving. (The word "conclave" derives from the Latin "with key.") However, they still could not decide on a pope. The people became so frustrated they tore off the roof, leaving the locked-up cardinals exposed to the weather. The cardinals were only given bread and water to eat. Finally, on September 1, 1271, they chose a successor, Pope Gregory X. Hence forward, the meeting of the cardinals to elect a pope became known as a "conclave."
Because of this prolonged conclave, the Second Council of Lyons (1274) decreed that for future conclaves, the cardinal electors would be "locked up" to eliminate any outside forces from influencing the election. Although later rescinded, the Council also mandated that if a pope was not elected after three days, then the cardinals would only have one meal at noon and one at night; and if a pope was not elected after five days, they would receive only bread, water and wine. Such living conditions motivated the cardinals to choose a pope in a timely manner.
This subject will be continued next week.
Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and a professor of catechetics and theology at Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria. If you enjoy reading Fr. Saunders' work, his new book entitled Straight Answers (400 pages) is available at the Pauline Book and Media Center of Arlington, Virginia (703/549-3806).
(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
2005-03-12 12:53 | User Profile
Walter, long ago I read that there was another way to choose a Pope and it is called "By Popular Acclamation", when this is done then anyone who has been ordain by the church can be the Pope and not only a Cardinal.
If you think this is inportant then let me know and I'll find the rule number where it shows the above.
2005-03-12 13:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Walter, long ago I read that there was another way to choose a Pope and it is called "By Popular Acclamation", when this is done then anyone who has been ordain by the church can be the Pope and not only a Cardinal.
If you think this is inportant then let me know and I'll find the rule number where it shows the above.[/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that . . . I . . . could be proclaimed Pope??? :alucard:
Wow!
My red hat is officially in the ring!
If I'm made Pope I promise:
I'm open to other suggestions.
Okay, guys (Protestants too) I need your support!!!
2005-03-12 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Okay, guys (Protestants too) I need your support!!![/QUOTE] You've got my vote. I like the platform. But, why not add a promise to shut down Catholic Charities and every other so-called Catholic organization working 24/7 to import millions of non-white immigrants into the West? I don't mind saying, I think left-wing "Catholics" who support multiculturalism & mass immigration are an evil, right up there with child-molesting fags. :angry:
2005-03-12 18:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]You've got my vote. I like the platform. But, why not add a promise to shut down Catholic Charities and every other so-called Catholic organization working 24/7 to import millions of non-white immigrants into the West? I don't mind saying, I think left-wing "Catholics" who support multiculturalism & mass immigration are an evil, right up there with child-molesting fags. :angry:[/QUOTE]
Right you are!!
Not only are they shut down, but they all get all their joints torn apart on the rack and then burned at the stake!!!
2005-03-12 19:05 | User Profile
Sadly, Stuka, Catholics have left in so many droves in recent years that the bishops resort to promoting immigration largely out of desire to keep any bodies in their pews and donations filling their coffers. It's driven by dollars and cents as much as by left-wing ideology, though left-wing they are. They are a sad lot, our bishops. Mother Angelica is really the only man in the Church in this country. If she promoted Walter's agenda we might actually get somewhere.
Let me also commend to you the poetry of confederate Father Abram Joseph Ryan, which you can find easily over the web.
Lastly, there was an article years ago on the Catholic Church and the Confederacy by a journalist named Garry Potter. I have the url somewhere. I can't find it now but I'll post it if I can.
Here it is: [url]http://www.catholicism.org/pages/oldsouth.htm[/url]
2005-03-12 21:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gary Potter]
Tate, we say, explains why. Having adopted the worst kind of Protestantism (a form of it perhaps sufficient for commercial types concentrated on making money, as long as that is all they seek*), the South quite simply lacked the spiritual resources even to sustain its way of life, let alone to defend it again with arms.
What the South needed was the religion whose very liturgical cycles reflect the lives of men attuned to nature's cycles because they live on the land and work it; men who understand they are equal only in terms of life's ultimate end, which is to say before God; men bent on loftier tasks than money-making, like preserving their honor; men of peace but ready to fight if need be, like the famous and anonymous Confederate soldier captured after Mr. Lincoln sent his troops into the South and who was asked,
"Why do you fight us, Johnny Reb?"
"Because you are here," the soldier answered. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for that link.
2005-03-13 06:09 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
Could you bring back the Holy Office too. I would like to see the Knights Templar reorganized and a new Holy Crusade started free Constantinople from the Turks and then move on to free Jerusalem from the Jews and Saracens.
2005-03-13 07:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis,
Could you bring back the Holy Office too. I would like to see the Knights Templar reorganized and a new Holy Crusade started free Constantinople from the Turks and then move on to free Jerusalem from the Jews and Saracens.[/QUOTE]
You got it.
I promise that if I'm elected Pope I will launch a new Crusade against the enemies of Christendom. We will invade the Muslim lands and institute a mirror image of dhimmitude for Muslims. We will also search out and nuetralize all internal enemies, including especially Jews, who will be forcibily repatriated to Israel.
Jerusalem will be a wholly Christian city.
Walter for Pope!
2005-03-13 15:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Sadly, Stuka, Catholics have left in so many droves in recent years that the bishops resort to promoting immigration largely out of desire to keep any bodies in their pews and donations filling their coffers. [/QUOTE]I'm afraid you're absolutely right. That's the reason. And we all know how full of warm & fuzzy "Catholic values" these third world immigrants are...! :wink:
However, in recent years I've detected what I think is a resurgence in traditional Catholicism (Tridentine Mass) among younger white Catholics. It's a faint sign, perhaps, but it may lead to something better.
God forgive me for saying so, but I think some of the Church's problems will solve themselves, as the Vatican II generation priests & bishops start dying off. We need to be patient.
2005-03-13 16:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You got it.
I promise that if I'm elected Pope I will launch a new Crusade against the enemies of Christendom. We will invade the Muslim lands and institute a mirror image of dhimmitude for Muslims. [/QUOTE]
Help me out. "Dhimmitude?" Not in my dictionary.
I don't believe in another crusade. We lost fair and square.
I believe the loss of the Holy Land to the Muslims was a divine punishment for the sins of Christians. Besides, they'll always be happy to accept us as tourists and take our money.
2005-03-13 16:25 | User Profile
What is Dhimmitude?
[QUOTE]The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.
This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad.
Dhimmitude encompasses the relationship of Muslims and non-Muslims at the theological, social, political and economical levels. It also incorporates the relationship between the numerous ethno-religious dhimmi groups and the type of mentality that they have developed out of their particular historical condition which lasted for centuries, even in some Muslim countries, till today.
Dhimmitude is an entire integrated system, based on Islamic theology. It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place. Dhimmitude must be appraised according to its laws and customs, irrespectively of circumstances and political contingencies.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Whitewashing Radical Islam
By Robert Spencer
[URL=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9860]FrontPageMagazine.com[/URL] | September 17, 2003
The Economist this week demonstrated anew just how deeply dhimmitude has penetrated into Western thinking about Islam. Dhimmitude is the institutionalized subservience mandated by Islamic law, the Sharia, for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis must endure inferior status under the Sharia; if they protest, they risk forfeiting the ââ¬Åprotectionââ¬Â that they buy with their special high tax rate (jizya) and their humiliation.
The elaborate legal superstructure of dhimmitude in Islamic law is founded on the Qurââ¬â¢anââ¬â¢s Sura 9:29, which calls on Muslims to ââ¬Åfightââ¬Â against the ââ¬ÅPeople of the Bookââ¬Â (primarily Jews and Christians) ââ¬Åuntil they pay the Jizya [special tax for non-Muslims] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.ââ¬Â A vast body of Muslim theology and jurisprudence guaranteed dhimmis relative security as long as the jizya was paid; if payment ceased, jihad would resume.
This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude ââ¬â a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid, implemented for over a millennium across three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and still influential in Islamic nationsââ¬â¢ policies toward non-Muslim populations. The native ââ¬Åinfidelââ¬Â populations of lands conquered by Islamic armies were required to pay the jizya, recognize Islamic ownership of their land and accept laws forbidding them to own weapons, ring church bells, build new places of worship or repair old ones, testify in Muslim courts, or dress like Muslims. If they complained about these inequalities, they risked forfeiting their ââ¬Åprotection.ââ¬Â
Through political correctness, multiculturalist myopia, and the politicized pseudo-academic writings of dhimmi scholars such as Edward Said and John Esposito, the silence and subservience of dhimmitude has entered the public debate about Islam in America and Western Europe. It threatens to strangle that debate with whitewashes about the roots of jihad ideology, the reality of dhimmitude, and more.
A notable example appears in the September 13-19 issue of The Economist. In an article entitled ââ¬ÅIn the name of Islam,ââ¬Â Peter David goes so far as to acknowledge what few other analysts have dared to: that the jihad ideology that gives rise to terrorism ââ¬Åhas, or claims to have, connections with some of the fundamental ideas and practices of the religion itself.ââ¬Â However, he never provides readers the smallest glimpse of what these fundamental ideas and practices might be. Instead, he shifts direction and explores the thought of the influential Egyptian Muslim radical, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), who taught that no (Muslim or non-Muslim) state, ungoverned by Sharia, had any right to exist.
David states that much radical jihadist theory ââ¬Åis modern, as political as it is religious, with origins in the late 20th century.ââ¬Â But his Economist piece offers no hint of the great pains that Qutb took in order to show the foundations of his teachings in traditional Muslim sources. David quotes Qutb as dividing the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb) but makes no mention of the fact that this is an ancient distinction established by some of Islamââ¬â¢s earliest theologians and jurists, or that it remains significant to Islamic law today. Qutb himself was not so circumspect: he completed an immense thirty-volume commentary on the Qurââ¬â¢an, In the Shade of the Qurââ¬â¢an, in which he attempts to demonstrate again and again that the pure Islam of the sacred book is todayââ¬â¢s radical Islam of blood and terror.
Qutbââ¬â¢s tradition is not the only one in Islam, and millions of peaceful Muslims would reject his theological and political ideas. But to imply that religious violence and religious terrorism are newly minted elements of Islam with no plausible traditional foundations is to ignore how jihad ideologues read (and use to recruit) the Qurââ¬â¢an, the Muslim Prophet Muhammadââ¬â¢s example, an elaborate body of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, and fourteen centuries of Islamic history.
David underscores his omission by breezily dismissing jihadist justifications for violent jihad, stating, ââ¬ÅIslam has a concept of jihad (holy war), which some Muslims think should be added to the five more familiar pillars of faith: the oath of belief, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. But the Koran also insists that there should be no compulsion in religion.ââ¬Â Had David read Qutb further, he would have found, the great Egyptian radical also insisted that jihad in no way involved forced conversion. However, that is not the same as saying jihad is not violent. As I detail extensively in Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, Qutb drew on traditional concepts of Islamic law to inveigh against the concept of jihad as a forceful means of converting people to Islam. Rather, he insisted, jihad was an offensive struggle to establish the hegemony of the Sharia and subservient dhimmi status for all non-Muslims ââ¬â who would then be free, of course, to ease the pain of their inferior condition by converting to Islam if they chose.
According to David, ââ¬ÅOnly a small fraction of [the worldââ¬â¢s] 1.5 billion Muslims will have heard of, let alone subscribe to, the ideas of theorists such as Qutb.ââ¬Â These ideas may be more widely diffused than he thinks. A casual look today at the Muslim blogspot [url]www.clearguidance.com[/url], run out of Staten Island, turned up bloggers quoting the writings of Qutb, Osama bin Ladenââ¬â¢s mentor Abdullah Azzam, and Osama himself. Maybe there are few people reading such books, but only a few are needed to commit terrorist acts.
David goes on to say that ââ¬ÅIslam and Christendom have clashed for centuries. But if there is something in the essence of Islam that predisposes its adherents to violent conflict with the West, it is hard to say what it might be.ââ¬Â The ignorance of this statement is nothing short of breathtaking. According to a traditional source of Islamic law, Muslims must make ââ¬Åwar upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.ââ¬Â This obligation is amply delineated in numerous traditional Islamic sources, and it is the foundation for the institutionalized oppression inflicted by dhimmitude laws, under which Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and others have suffered for centuries.
Knowingly or not, The Economist whitewashes radical Islamââ¬â¢s sources in Islamic theology and tradition. This plays into terroristsââ¬â¢ hands as clearly and directly as a whitewashed portrait of Americaââ¬â¢s pre-Civil War South plays into the hands of white supremacists, or a whitewashed picture of Nazi Germany into the hands of anti-Semites. A new organization, Dhimmi Watch, is forming to oppose all such whitewashes ââ¬â on behalf of human rights victims of jihad and dhimmitude now and throughout Islamic history. Whitewashes have no place in any serious, honest analysis of modern-day terrorism.[/QUOTE]
2005-03-13 16:56 | User Profile
Stuka,
If you are interested in what's going on with the Traditional Movement, may I suggest the following magazine: 'Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture' based in New Jersey. Telephone # (201) 327-5900 or latinmassmagazine.com
Regards, vytis
2005-03-13 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka] God forgive me for saying so, but I think some of the Church's problems will solve themselves, as the Vatican II generation priests & bishops start dying off. We need to be patient.[/QUOTE]
It's the truth ... I see no shame in stating it. Most of those finally reaching retirement age or dying off were thoroughly brainwashed and beyond the reach of mere mortals where righting their Catholic faith was concerned. It's a pity they never had the true faith of their convictions such that they left the Church instead of remaining hypocrite revolutionaries within, bent on re-forming Her in their own image.
She's righted herself before, patience is indeed a virtue.
I attend (and shall soon resume singing) a Tridentine Mass. No matter where you attend a traditional Latin Mass you see the same thing: lots of elderly, lots of young homeschooler type couples with naturally-sized families (for couples having real sex, anyway), and a smattering of folks my age (40 or so) who managed somehow to slip the knot of the revolution in which we tied as kids and now seek to reclaim our rightful inheritance as Catholics.
Just a big black hole where the Boomers should be.
Nearing Retirement, Priests of 60s Fear Legacy is Lost (FR, 9/2000) ... may God forgive me if I stand to cheer and even whistle like a boy!)
2005-03-14 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Wow!
My red hat is officially in the ring!
If I'm made Pope I promise:
I'm open to other suggestions.
Okay, guys (Protestants too) I need your support!!![/QUOTE]
Your Holiness, could we have an Expulsion of the jews, please?
2005-03-14 19:17 | User Profile
I'm not a Catholic, but I think that the influence of the liberalised Catholic Church during the early Sixties was one of the major, unacknowledged, forces opening the gates to the anything-goes chaos that followed. I well remember the popular non-Catholic reaction to John XXIII and his successors' "reform" Catholicism. It was along the lines of "Gosh, if even an institution as tradition-bound and venerable as the Catholic Church is leaning to the left and becoming touchy-feelie, then I guess there must be something to all this 'do your own thing' and 'Age of Aquarius' stuff after all."
I wonder, though, if four decades of self-flagellation and abandonment of tradition haven't left the Catholic Church too irrelevant to be much of an influence any more, even if they suddenly did a 180-degree turn back toward the old ways.
Anyone want to put odds on the next pope being a negro?
2005-03-14 19:22 | User Profile
Pope Walter-
How's about writing a much-needed "priesthood of the believer" encyclical? (1 Peter 2:9)
The Revolutionary Reforming Pope!
2005-03-14 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]Your Holiness, could we have an Expulsion of the jews, please?[/QUOTE] Coming right up, my son.
2005-03-14 19:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Pope Walter-
How's about writing a much-needed "priesthood of the believer" encyclical? (1 Peter 2:9)
The Revolutionary Reforming Pope![/QUOTE] Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid my Papacy will be heavy on organizational cleansing and light on theology.
Walter I will be a sort of the polar opposite of John Paul II.
2005-03-14 20:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]I'm not a Catholic, but I think that the influence of the liberalised Catholic Church during the early Sixties was one of the major, unacknowledged, forces opening the gates to the anything-goes chaos that followed. I well remember the popular non-Catholic reaction to John XXIII and his successors' "reform" Catholicism. It was along the lines of "Gosh, if even an institution as tradition-bound and venerable as the Catholic Church is leaning to the left and becoming touchy-feelie, then I guess there must be something to all this 'do your own thing' and 'Age of Aquarius' stuff after all."
I wonder, though, if four decades of self-flagellation and abandonment of tradition haven't left the Catholic Church too irrelevant to be much of an influence any more, even if they suddenly did a 180-degree turn back toward the old ways.
Anyone want to put odds on the next pope being a negro?[/QUOTE]
Your comments are so apt it hurts. Watching the Church today is like watching the last remnant of a gigantic forest fire. You see devastation everywhere but you know that a lot of old growth has been cleared away, and underneath the surface new growth will emerge. The new growth in this case is the gathering traditionalist movement, gaining strength each year as the Vatican II generation declines or dies out.
As for a negro, no. I expect after this papacy that the next will be more conventional. We've had enough convulsion. I predict an Italian, or if not, a Western European, maybe even a Spaniard. If a strong enough candidate can't be found, they might gamble on a South American.
2005-03-15 03:13 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
I hope you will ware the Papal Tiara and be carried in a sedan chair like a proper pope. And could you declare Queen Isabella and Charles Martel saints. So is Mrs. Yannis to be put away in a nunnery or will be you be the first married pope since Hadrian II died in 872. I think burning the Kennedy Family at the stake would be a good idea too.
All Hail Pope Walter!
2005-03-15 10:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis,
I hope you will ware the Papal Tiara and be carried in a sedan chair like a proper pope. And could you declare Queen Isabella and Charles Martel saints. So is Mrs. Yannis to be put away in a nunnery or will be you be the first married pope since Hadrian II died in 872. I think burning the Kennedy Family at the stake would be a good idea too.
All Hail Pope Walter![/QUOTE]
Thank you for your warm words, my son.
Both the blessed Isabella and Martel shall be not only canonized but made the partron saints of the New Inquisition (Isabella) and New Crusade (Martel).
The question of Mrs. Yannis is a difficult one. I'm leaning toward a harsh, Carmelite convent experience for her, which I'm sure she'll find a great relief after nearly 20 years of marriage with me.
The Kennedys aren't worth the trouble. I needn't stoop that low to conquer.
2005-03-18 04:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=vytis] If you are interested in what's going on with the Traditional Movement, may I suggest the following magazine: 'Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture' based in New Jersey. Telephone # (201) 327-5900 or latinmassmagazine.com [/QUOTE] Thanks for the recommendation.
Christian Order magazine, based in the UK, is worth a look too:
[url="http://www.christianorder.com/"]http://www.christianorder.com/[/url]