I am aware of a Papal Coronation Oath that was first taken by Pope Saint Agatho on June 27, 678. I have found places on the internet that say ALL the popes since Pope Agatho have taken this oath (see below to read the oath) but that John Paul I and John Paul II did not take it. I know that JPI and JPII did not have the formal, tradition coronation ceremony. Is the oath part of that ceremony? Can anyone give any documentation as to whether or not JPII did take the Papal Coronation Oath?

Here is the oath:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."

Thank you in advance for your help!

-- Terri Browning (bout90feet@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003

Answers

Interesting except that nothing which is not dogmatic is absolutely necessary - including the rite of coronation or this oath. It's not magic and it's not a sine qua non of legitimacy. After all, to whom does the Pope swear? Without the oath wouldn't he just as much be obliged to obey the faith and morals of the Church? Hasn't John Paul II constantly harkened back to his predecessors in nearly every encyclical and major statement?

In short, in the Church, the supreme legislator is the Pope - and what one Pope "binds on earth" another can "loosen". If one Pope makes the college of cardinals 120 members strong, another can lower it back to 80 or dispense with the college altogether.

Some things are dogma and others are doctrine, and others are customs and useful proceedures only... it's vital to not confuse them for each other or raise formula to some super-sacramental or dogmatic level it doesn't have.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 26, 2003.

More than likely JPI and JPII did not take the oath because it is a kingly view of the papacy. That is also why they were not crowned with the papal crown. The papacy is not a monarchy and so the recent popes have despensed with traditions that make it look like such.

-- Scott (papasqaut10@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003.

I have asked many, some who claim to be experts on the papacy, and defenders of John Paul ll. I never get a yes or a no. I am often accused of being a pope basher for asking the question. My question to the question is why won't the defenders of Vatican II answer a question straight forward? Did he take it? Yes he did. Or No he did not. And of course a nice why he did not take it would be helpful in understanding all of this. Rosa Viadolor@aol.com

-- Rosa David (viadolor@aol.com), August 26, 2003.

This oath was written by Pope St. Agatho c. 678 AD but is most likely several centuries older. This oath was taken by all the pontiffs until Pope John-Paul II who did not take it.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), August 29, 2003.

Hi Terri I think it relates to changes made at Vatican II . Heres an old post thats related that might help a bit but in short I dont know whether he took the oath or not.

Vatican II produced a constitution for the Church, something never before done and long overdue. The papacy remained as intact and essential as ever but the constitution began by acknowledging not the Pope or clergy but the ‘people of God ‘as the primary constituents of the church.

Chris despite your strongest desires Vatican II destroyed the absolute monarchy you so wish for. Co responsibility was the word used. Simply, the bishops consult with and listen to their people. The Pope consults with and listens to his bishops. That is how the Holy Spirit acts in the church. And that essentially is how the church will be preserved from error.

Pope John Paul II goes even further. Firstly we cannot dismiss how symbolically important it was that both Pope John Paul I and Pope JP II did away with the solemn crowning of Popes at their inauguration ceremony. They were only confirming the idea, already long dead that the papacy is a monarchy. From his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” while not discounting the title Vicar of Christ he makes it clear that he sees himself as he was the successor of Peter the Apostle who sinned to the extent that he denied he ever knew Jesus. Our Pope insists that every Christian is ‘another Christ’ and every bishop a Vicar of Christ. Most importantly, and I doubt these words have ever seen the light of day around here he says: ‘On reflection christianus has greater significance than episcopus, even if the subject is the Bishop of Rome’.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 30, 2003.

The mention of Agatho's Oath is typical of the insidious methods some will descend to in attacking a person when no legitimate issues exist which are worthy of attack. It is reminiscent of the attack on Pius XII. Psst ... did ya hear? Pius XII failed to speak out strongly against Nazi atrocities committed against the Jews". That's all they tell us. Revealing anything more would necessarily require speaking the truth, and truth would subvert their purpose. They inject a small, irrelevant semi-truth, specifically designed to be misunderstood, to incite discussion among the ignorant, and to breed contempt. And before too long, some ignoramus will publish an article describing Pius XII as an antisemitic Nazi collaborator. Never mind the fact that he was specifically requested by Jewish leaders to refrain from speaking out. Never mind that he worked relentlessly behind the scenes to subvert Nazi plans. Never mind that he is personally credited with saving over 800,000 Jewish lives. Never mind that he received many commendations and gifts from Jewish leaders after the war, thanking him for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish people. It is what people think that matters, not the facts.

Psst ... did ya hear? John Paul II refused to take the Papal Coronation Oath! Whoooaaa! That sounds serious! Of course, 99.9% of Catholics have never heard of Agatho's Oath, and haven't the slightest clue what it is; but refusing to take a Papal Oath - well, that sure SOUNDS bad! Indeed! Just as bad as it is meant to sound by those quasi-Catholics who would seek to denigrate the Holy Father, but lack any substantial criticism that might actually be leveled against him. They tell us "all Popes since Agatho have taken this oath" - a statement which reveals that some of the WORST Popes in history DID recite this bit of verbiage. So much for any correlation between the recitation of a 7th century liturgical innovation and the quality of a given Pontiff! The most reasonable response to "John Paul II didn't take Agatho's Oath" is, obviously ... "so?" That short query abruptly terminates the discussion, since there is no rational reply that can be given without bringing in the truth. But, many people just don't think this deeply. Or at all. For those who have already decided what they want to believe, anything that furthers their cause will do. There will always be enough unknowing souls who don't ask "so?", but who instead think "oh my gosh, I never knew that. What can this possibly mean?, oblivious to the fact that the answer to their fretful query is ... nothing. Nothing at all.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2003.

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.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), August 31, 2003.

Dear Everyone, The reason why the pope is not crowned with the triple tiara and not taking proper oath is because promising to up hold church laws. Actually leaves ambiguity; for if it changes that is the law. This is NWO stuff. George Bush did the same, "the Law" the "Law" what law? Their made up ones???? John

-- John Anthony Yost (jyoster@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.

True, that it's not that important, but the oath against Modernism is. The pope did not take that one either. First since St Pius 10th. Wonder why?

-- Terry. (abc@304.com), September 12, 2003.

On May 31, 1967, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith substituted for the Oath Against Modernism a Profession of Faith. The Oath Against Modernism was only taken from 1910 to 1966.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

I did quite a bit of research on this issue because I never accept stuff I read onthe I-net. This smacked of urban legend to me. Here's what I found:

1) The "Oath" quoted is from a collection of formulae compiled over several centuries and may or may not have been written by St. Agatho;

2) That collection of formulae, including the oath, has not been in use since the 11th Century - - thus, NO pope after the 11th Century has taken that oath.

This is the kind of scurrilious stuff one would expect from non- Catholics who feel the need to make up lies about our Church in order to lure converts, or worse, people who callt hemselves Catholics but who discredit the Pope.

-- Lori Valdez (lolival@earthlink.net), October 30, 2003.

Thanks Lori and welcome!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.

Vatian II addressed alot of changes and issues prevalent and I don't think the council fathers overlooked any details. So all you pre-Vatican II folks who do NOT hold a degree in theology nor spent years cultivating your spirituality have supreme say over the council fathers, much less the hierarchy. Besides, who is the ultimate judge but God?

-- Hung Doan (hqdoan@mail.utexas.edu), April 10, 2004.

Boy am I glad to find this listserve and these posts. This papal oath thing has been driving me nutz!

Great answers!Lori, thanks for doing legwork on this one!

-- Jason Brim (jason@brimsjewelry.com), May 30, 2004.

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that a Pope making an ex cathedra statement on matters of faith and morals, CANNOT err. Therefore it seems that to formally take the above oath, (implying that such statements by a Pope may be wrong), is to blaspheme against the Catholic faith.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 01, 2004.