Jump to content

PRIMUS OECUMENICUS CONSILIUM ALBAROSA - 1804, 357 ES


Draeris
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ailred files a diplomatic protest over the lack of process before voting anyway:

Venerations:

Empress Anne the August of Novellen - NAY
High Pontiff James II - AYE
High Pontiff Pontian III - AYE
Governor-General Richard de Reden - NAY
Vicar Lemuel de Langford - NAY

Father Pius of Sutica - AYE

Cardinal Anton Barclay - AYE

 

Beatifications:

Cardinal Erasmus von Getreide of Ves - NAY

Queen Viktoria var Ruthern of Haense - AYE

 

Canonisations:

Andrik Vydra - AYE

John of Carnatia - AYE
Jasper of Renzfeld - AYE

Otto II of Haense - AYE

Vytenis of Luciensport - AYE
High Pontiff Everard II - AYE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Few hours passed, and Alfred Episcopus Henrikev finally decided to give his last response for the day being.

 

"Dear brothers, colleagues and friends. Honestly, I admit that it has been a while since I have read and interpreted the key points of this session, but I came with hope only the right decisions, which will preserve and make our Church better."

 

 

I) NO. In my opinion, the composition of the Canon Law is ideal. A new mandate that should change its structure would be unnecessary, especially now that he can do a fine job with legal feats.

 

II) YES. I gladly agree to his Eminence Cardinal Jorenus, as I am for that Archdiocesan title of ‘Jorenus’ stands, for it has been instituted as the diocesan title since the High Pontiff Saint Sixtus IV's reign. Our tradition should remain, and what has been done with the new dioceses in the Archdiocese of Jorenus is excellent. The new names, with their beautiful meanings, have greatly influenced the presentation of the Church to other people, so I have nothing against this point.

 

III) NO. Personal opinion is that Curia should stay as it is now, indeed. The additions may contribute to the work of the Church, but I still think that so far many clergymen present have agreed that this could escalate at some point. In my opinion, let's not touch the Curia, because it is currently functioning properly.

 

IV) NO. If we were to shorten the number of miracles to make it easier for a person to become a Saint, I don’t see it as a fair and reasonable way to work. Sainthood should be a great honor and feat for a person, noting his successes and pious endeavors. 

 

V) NO. We have to look at this point from another angle. It is an indisputable fact that the High Pontiff is the head of the Church and that there is no objection to him, but we must take into account that if his rule goes against God and, of course, goes wrong, then this point will not be directed to the right path and the right solution.

 

VI) YES. Papal briefs are important documents indeed, so I see no problem with this.

 

VII) YES. I agree with the stated point. It is simply necessary to direct the Minor Bulls towards the Golden Bulls, because as Cardinal Jorenus stated his fact, shepherds must be in contact with their flock, in other words, clergy must be in good contact with the people of the region through any kind of document as himself God finds it right.

 

VIII) Removed.

 

IX) NO. Can not agree on this point. I disagree with this point because I again grasp the fact that this can be used for the wrong purposes, if the reign of the bad High Pontiff ever comes. The integrity of our Church must remain intact and as it is now, so we must present some views that may be difficult to present.

 

X) With everything being said, let us pass onto the next proposals, including venerations, beatifications and such: 

 

To venerate:

X.I).Empress Anne the August of Novellen - NO

X.II). His Holiness the High Pontiff James II - YES

X.III). His Holiness the High Pontiff Pontian III - YES

X.IV). Governor-General Richard de Reden - NO

X.V). Vicar Lemuel de Langford - NO

 

XI). To beautify:

XI.I). Cardinal Erasmus von Getreide of Ves - YES

 

"Again, I would like to remind his Holiness on my two proposals, one to venerate late Anton Barclay, Archbishop of Jorenus, and to beatify late Queen of Haense, Viktoria vas Ruthern. They indeed have enough materials to prove their diligence and good traits."

 

 

Edited by repl1ca
Link to post
Share on other sites

Father Dima Carrion attended the ecumenical council. He trudged through the clergy in attendance, peering over to Cardinal St. Julia and taking up a seat next to the good Cardinal. The two exchanged some quiet remarks, with some topic being discussed on something or another. After their light conversation, the priest stood and proclaim for the room to hear,

 

"I would like to back the movement to approve the veneration of Father Pius of Sutica for his countless works and accomplishments including his excellent compiled commentaries of the Scrolls he has made. I would like for the council to not consider the beatification of Queen Viktoria var Ruthern as no mentions of the miracles they have been made have been said, but call for the council to consider the veneration of Queen Viktoria var Ruthern, in addition to High Pontiff Pontian III and Queen Maya of Muldav being added to the list of venerated. Furthermore, I back the movement to approve the veneration of all previous High Pontiffs."

 

After speaking, the priest sat down and continued his conversation with the Cardinal quietly.

 

Spoiler

(x) Approving the veneration of Father Pius of Sutica

(x) Approving the veneration of High Pontiff Pontian III

(x) Approving the veneration of Queen Maya of Muldav

(x) Approving the veneration of all previous High Pontiffs

 

Edited by JoanOfArc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia would stand up and begin his statement,

 

I) NoIn my opinion, there is no reason to change the current canon law, I find it as a unnecessary reform to change it.

 

II) YesI agree with this proposal for the same reasons as Brother Benedict and Brother Alfred

 

III) NoI like Brother Benedict, warn of a huge bureaucracy, the bureaucratic systems in some nations sometimes goes against popular concern. The Church does not need these same kind of barriers in it, surely?

 

IV) No. Why should they be changed? Sainthood is supposed to be for the holiest of people, si?

 

V) No. I do agree with the purpose of this proposal, but it is already the first crime against virtue in the canon law to harm the church, so I find this proposal unnecessary.

 

VI) Yes. Papal briefs are already important documents, so I have no problem with this proposal.

 

VII) Yes. For the same reasons Brother Alfred and Cardinal Jorenus have presented

 

VIII) [REMOVED]

 

IX)  Yes. If the Cardinals do approve the High Pontiff's proposal to overturn a lesser judge, I see no reason for it to not be accepted by the majority.

 

X) I agree with all the nominees

 

XI) I also agree with all the nominees

Edited by Timer5011
Link to post
Share on other sites

I. No, I see no need of altrering the structure & typography of the current Canon Law.

 

II. Yes, I agree completely with the Right Reverend, Bishop Benedict on this proposal

17 hours ago, Piov said:

II) YES. With difference to my good friend, the Vice Chancellor, I rise in support of retaining the Archdiocesan title of ‘Jorenus’ as it stands for it has been instituted as the diocesan title since the time of High Pontiff Saint Sixtus IV. No Pontiff since has made any effort or saw necessity to alter such. As for Providentia and Albarosa, I do support a retention of significant princely archdiocesan jurisdictions. However, the point stands that these are named after secular cities or titles whereas Jorenus corresponds to a saint whom all Highlandic Canonists derive cultural origin. I move that if the Pontiff seeks to establish permanent names, they should be altered with a saint or holy entity corresponding to the region. 

 

III. Yes, I agree with the expansion and the clarification of each role in Book II, Title II. Chapter III. A proper explanation of each role will greatly help the newer clergymen of our Holy Mother Church as any other individual, that is oblivious on this matter. Regarding the expansion of the Curia, i will have to trust your Holiness's judgement in doing so, though i would prefer if your Holliness assigned new roles AFTER a change in the Canon Law and NOT before.

 

IV. No, changing Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., is not right by my concience. Any Saint that has only one miracle should be re-investigated, in my humble opinion.

 

V. Yes, I do agree with the concept, history should not be repeated, any schismatics like Dima and Cyril should not be protected by any Canon Law. Ofcourse i changed my mind with the insurance of the words of the Holy Vicar and i quote "No, this would not mean that when someone signs a petition or disagrees with my policy, as you are now, would be excommunicated. It would however mean that if someone acts schismatic, but only targets His Holiness and not the institution as a whole, we can still prosecute him accordingly: or declare him as excommunicated, which a schismatic de facto is until penance."

 

VI. Yes, I support this.

 

VII. Yes, I agree with this proposal.

 

VIII. REMOVED

 

IX. Yes, I agree with this proposal, as the intervention of the Holy Vicar of God, would be able to overturn any false decissions made by corrupt judges, such as the likes of Goren or simply, correct a mistake of a judge, due to the judge's lack of experience.

 

X.  To venerate : N/A

 

XI. To beautify: N/A

 

XII. To beautify and then proceed to Canonize: N/A

 

XIII. To Canonize: N/A

 

As I luck personal knowledge and any documents about those individuals, i can not give an answer. I might have been a clergyman when our previous Holy Father was among us, though it was at his last years, so even regarding him, i can not give a proper answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers, I have a few proposals which I wish to add to this ecumenical council before I respond to the proposals already made by the Pontiff. Firstly I propose that any mention of the punishment of interdiction be removed from canon law. This is because I believe it is immoral and wrong to prevent the clergy from performing canonist rites to specific individuals unless they are excommunicated. I also believe it to be wholly unprofessional and abhorrent to place these measures on entire nations, cities or places due to the sins of their leader. The Holy Mother Church should not restrict its activities and rites given to the canonist populace just because a leader might be a sinful man or woman, it is wrong.

 

Secondly I have recently seen in the most recent papal bull that his Holiness wishes to reinstate tithes and I disagree with this measure to fill up the churches coffers. I propose that any mention of tithes be removed from canon law as it is wrong to tax the faithful simply for doing our God-given duties. I do not preach and spread the word of God in hopes of being paid, and I would pray that my fellow clergy does not do the same. Donations and selling materials in shops is how the church should gather its funds, each diocese should be in charge of its own funds also. We should all follow his Eminence, Cardinal Benedict’s footsteps and activities like the fish fry. I believe it wrong to tax the faithful for being in their cities, because that's what a tithe is - tax.

 

Currently there are no defined laws around the way in which a rebukement of a sitting pontiff may occur and the procedure around it to avoid a pontiff taking retaliatory action against cardinals who would vote to rebuke him. I propose the following is added into canon law under Title II - Constitutional Hierarchy of the Church, in its own chapter.

 

Chapter 6. The Rebukement of a sitting Pontiff

I. In order for the rebukement process to begin the Auditor of the Tribunal must open a public inquiry into the alleged crimes or reasons that may warrant his removal from office. This is an inquiry not a trial

A. Any who wish to provide evidence to an inquiry of rebukement may do so without fear of repercussions or defrockment from a sitting Pontiff

B. A sitting Pontiff can not issue orders barring his clergy or general populace from attending this inquiry or testifying

C. Once the Auditor of the Tribunal has opened a formal inquiry into alleged crimes, or justification for rebukement, the Pontiff may not remove the Auditor until the inquiry and subsequent vote, if it is warranted, is concluded.

D. A sitting Pontiff may not defrock any member of the clergy for testifying at an inquiry.

II. If as a result of an inquiry the Auditor of the Tribunal deems it fit to argue the case for rebukement before the college of cardinals than he may do so freely without preventative measures taken by a sitting Pontiff.

III. If the Auditor of the Tribunal should become ill, incapacitated or die during this process than the Vice-Chancellor will stand in for him.

IV. Once the Auditor of the Tribunal has made his case before the college of cardinals they may vote on whether to rebuke the Pontiff or not, this must be a unanimous decision.

A. If the Auditor of the Tribunal deems it fit that a vote of rebukement must happen then all cardinals are obliged to vote, none can abstain.

B. During the process as the case is presented by the Auditor of the Tribunal and during the vote of rebukement, the Supreme Order of Exalted Owyn must act as a neutral force and guard the proceedings from any who would interrupt.

V. If the vote of rebukement fails than all shall be as before however a sitting Pontiff may not defrock, demote or excommunicate the Auditor of the Tribunal or any member of the college of cardinals for voting disfavorably against a sitting Pontiff.

VI. If the vote of rebukement passes unanimously than the sitting Pontiff must resign his papal throne immediately and may issue no decrees, papal bulls or any writing that would go against the decision taken by the college of cardinals.

A. Once the sitting Pontiff has resigned his seat he will thus be declared Pontiff-Emeritus.

B. After the resignation of the sitting Pontiff the church will declare a state of sede vacante and the college of cardinals will once more convene at the behest of the Auditor of the Tribunal to elect a new Pontiff.

C. The previously sitting Pontiff may not put himself forward for election for the remainder of his life.

C. During the state of sede vacante the authority of the Supreme Order of Exalted Owyn transfers to the Auditor of the Tribunal to ensure a smooth transition of power, once a new Pontiff is elected the authority will return to its holder.

VII. If it is the wish of the Auditor of the Tribunal to begin proceedings for a prosecution for the alleged crimes of the Pontiff-Emeritus, then he may do so

 

My final proposal is for an addition to be made to Canon law that will outlaw the practise of selling indulgences. I do pray that no clergymen may ever fall so far from grace and begin performing this but canon law is universal and prevents any from doing so in the future. I believe the practise of selling indulgences is extremely heretical because it is, in no uncertain words, selling salvation. Salvation can not be bought with coin or conspiracies but with love for God and penance.


 

 

Now that all of my proposals have been made I will reply to the proposals already made by Owyn the third. I shall begin with sections I and II to simply say that these are unnecessary additions to make and have us vote on because no mandate is required to change canon law, an ecumenical council is and his Holiness may call an ecumenical council to reform canon law provided that at least three quarters of the entire clergy are present and cast their vote for or against the proposals made. Also, the names of each diocese usually depends on their location such as Providentia and should not be made permanent. Section III seems interesting though I am most confused why the additions that he intends to make have not been presented to us so before we can vote on this I believe that the changes he will make if this is approved should be shown to us. With section IV I agree with some of my fellow clergymen present, that the criteria for sainthood should not change simply for the sake of change but those saints with only one miracle be deeply evaluated. For the saints with only one miracle we should delve into their history and search for any other miracles that can be attributed to them.

 

Now onto section V of Owyn’s proposals, this one regarding sedition which I find most confusing. I do not see the requirement for this to be added to canon law as there are already laws against sedition and all canonists accused of a crime in canon law should have a right to have a trial and not immediately face excommunication. Excommunication is not a tool that we should use with so little affect. This also sets a dangerous precedent wherein any cardinal who expresses their wish to rebuke any sitting Pontiff or any who vote in favour of rebuking a pontiff might be charged with this crime and face immediate excommunication. This law allows for a sitting Pontiff to punish his cardinals for invoking their right to rebuke a sitting Pontiff and I do not believe this is acceptable as rebukement is very clearly set in canon law. I shall skip section VI, VII and VIII and move straight onto section IX. I believe what is proposed here is very dangerous and shows a great distrust between his Holiness and the judges that hold trials in canon law. His Holiness should trust the abilities and judgement of his judges lest why is there a point in them to begin with. If his Holiness does not wish for his judges to make judgements that are not acceptable to him then why have them to begin with. Judges should act independently and give a fair judgement else the whole trial process is a complete and absolute farce.


 

Edited by Basil Moroul
FINALLY MANAGED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Javier Fransisco-Altamirano would look over the measures placed forward and casts his votes,

and states "through the grace of God and through much thought and prayer. I have come to these conclusions"

I). To receive a mandate to completely overhaul the structuring & typography of the current Canon Law

 

Yes- The church of canon is facing unprecedented times, and many challenges, we must change with the changing world and people, to better lead the flock of canonists to GOD.

 

II). To add a stipulation to Canon Law that makes the (Princely) Archdioceses of Providentia, Jorenus & Albarosa permanent within the Holy Mother Church, in name and in scope. 

 

Yes- It is amazing to see the church grow, I fully support this measure. 

 

III). To update the definitions in Book II, Title II. Chapter III., expanding the Curia roles currently present & outlining their tasks more concretely. This involves the addition of the new roles already granted, and to add onto the existing descriptions the de facto tasks of each curia role as well. 

 

Yes- I fully support this measure. A more concrete set of roles makes for a streamlined job, and leaves more time to pray and lead the flock of GOD

 

IV). To change in Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., that only one attributable miracle is necessary for sainthood: as not all current saints have two.

 

Yes- Sainthood is given to people of virtue. One can be virtuous but not have so many obvious miracles. For life itself is a miracle given to us through the unmatched love of GOD

 

V). To add in Book V, Title II, Chapter I that inciting sedition against, questioning the legitimacy of or conspiring to harm the High Pontiff commits a crime and excommunicates himself automatically. This would involve a law stipulation that specifies what circumstances would justify such: such as disputing a legitimate election, or inciting violence against the High Pontiff as a person.

 

Yes- We must be strong in the face of adversity. However I fear that this law may be taken too far and this language is a slippery slope. I support this measure in good faith that the pontiff will make the right decision. 

 

VI). To add in Book V, Title II a chapter that describes Papal Briefs

 

Yes- There are many who do not understand who papal briefs are, explaining them more thoroughly could help make the church more understandable and attract more to the church

 

VII). To overhaul Book VI, Title II. Chapter III., rendering Minor Bulls ‘Archdiocesan Decrees’ and further streamlining them with the Golden Bulls of His Holiness

 

Yes- When leading more streamlined communication can help bring the word of the pontiff and the clergy faster to the flock of GOD. This seems like a logical decision and it has my full support.

 

IX). To add in BOOK VII, Title I, that the High Pontiff may, on his own accord, assume the role of judge within a trial, and overturn the ruling of a lesser judge with a majority of the cardinals backing such. This would require prior approval from the College of Cardinals and should principally be only used in severely important procedures

 

Yes- The pontiff has been chosen and elected to lead. And is a man of virtue and through the grace of GOD has been given such a high position. Since they are leader, they should serve as judge. This is a logical change. That has my full support.

 

 

 

 

Edited by bugbytes21
Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti received the proposals of the Eccumenical Council later than the rest of the clergymen due to his prior engagement with planning the construction of the Abbey there. The Visconti eyes the proposals carefully, considering each one, he writes down his thoughts as a note under each of the points to recall his argumentation if the need was to arise.

 

               "Let us hope they thought this through this time"  the young abbot mutters to himself.

 

I). To receive a mandate to completely overhaul the structuring & typography of the current Canon Law.

 

Yes - The Church Canon Law much change for a growing Church

 

II). To add a stipulation to Canon Law that makes the (Princely) Archdioceses of Providentia, Jorenus & Albarosa permanent within the Holy Mother Church, in name and in scope.

 

Yes - The young Visconti reflects back to his days as an acolyte, having to resolve paperwork for each of Archdioceses and think that the systems is bureaucratic an inefficient; a merger would help cement communication within the church.

 

III). To update the definitions in Book II, Title II. Chapter III., expanding the Curia roles currently present & outlining their tasks more concretely. This involves the addition of the new roles already granted, and to add onto the existing descriptions the de facto tasks of each curia role as well. 

 

Yes - This proposal seems to bring additional clarity to administrative roles, he worries about the risk of complicating church affairs but recalls that the Pontiff wanted to simplify and centralise the system.

 

IV). To change in Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., that only one attributable miracle is necessary for sainthood: as not all current saints have two.

 

Yes.

 

V). To add in Book V, Title II, Chapter I that inciting sedition against, questioning the legitimacy of or conspiring to harm the High Pontiff commits a crime and excommunicates himself automatically. This would involve a law stipulation that specifies what circumstances would justify such: such as disputing a legitimate election, or inciting violence against the High Pontiff as a person.

 

Yes - The Abbot thinks how fragile the church has become due to political meddling of the liberals and reasons that a strong spiritual leader need not be treated in the same manner as deposable city officials; instead, the integrity of his role should be defended as it is as much a part of the Church of the Cannon faith just as the foundations of our Cathedrals are. He think back to the scum of Red-Faith who had deposed his ancestors from Valeria, he curses Thoromir's name and believes that he is doing this for the integrity of the Faith.

 

VI). To add in Book V, Title II a chapter that describes Papal Briefs. 

 

Yes.

 

VII). To overhaul Book VI, Title II. Chapter III., rendering Minor Bulls ‘Archdiocesan Decrees’ and further streamlining them with the Golden Bulls of His Holiness.

 

Yes.

 

VIII). [REMOVED]

 

N/A

 

IX). To add in BOOK VII, Title I, that the High Pontiff may, on his own accord, assume the role of judge within a trial, and overturn the ruling of a lesser judge with a majority of the cardinals backing such. This would require prior approval from the College of Cardinals and should principally be only used in severely important procedures. 

 

Yes - The Pontiff should be able to veto attempts of deposition if he is able to demonstrate an absolute majority of support amongst his Cardinals.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Zoprak_Visconti said:

Yes - The Pontiff should be able to veto attempts of deposition if he is able to demonstrate an absolute majority of support amongst his Cardinals.

"How do you mean, Abbot? Do you mean to say that a sitting Pontiff is able to nullify a vote of rebukement, if that is what you meant when you said deposition. I could simply be confused though if what I believed you said is what you meant then that has no precedent in canon law." said Basil Moroul to the Abbot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicolas Barclay had been standing at attention the entire time, guarding the council when he finally felt the need to speak up. “Your Holiness, Your Eminences, Your Excellencies, and Reverend members of the Clergy, I seek to exercise my rights under Canon Law §II.II.5.8 to speak to this Council about my grave misgivings about a recent proposal to this body. First of all, the entire section is a mess and is not formatted correctly with the rest of Canon Law, although that can be easily remedied. I will, however, address these points.

 

“I disagree strongly with all five points under proposed §II.II.6.1. A public inquiry to decide whether the College should take up a vote to rebuke the Pontiff will be to make a mockery of the Church. The decision to rebuke a Pontiff falls upon the College of Cardinals alone. It requires deep introspection and prayer to determine how a Cardinal shall vote. It is not, and should never be, a public spectacle. By turning it into a public spectacle, this proposal will blatantly violate the private sanctity of preliminary investigations as detailed already in §VII.III.1.

 

“I further disagree strongly with proposed §II.II.6.2 and §II.II.6.3. The Auditor of the Tribunal is not a member of the College and has no part in the decision to rebuke a Pontiff. That decision falls to the College alone. Nor should anyone not within the College, excepting maybe the Pontiff himself, be involved in any private discussion before the vote. Like the votes to elect a Pontiff, a vote for Rebuke should be considered sacrosanct and for the eyes and ears of the College alone.

 

“Notwithstanding my prior arguments, I have further issues regarding the three points under proposed §II.II.6.4. First, the need for a unanimous decision to rebuke a Pontiff is already codified under §II.II.2.8. Second, under no circumstances should an Auditor of the Tribunal be given the decision to deem it fit for a vote to rebuke. That authority should remain for the College alone. Fourth, the reference to the Supreme Order of Exalted Owyn is troubling, as it is an organization with temporary authority granted by the Pontiff under §II.IV.1.2. For the very reason that the rebuke of the Pontiff should be contained wholly within the College, any Order of Holy Knighthood should not have any involvement.

 

“I further disagree strongly with the proposed §II.II.6.5, as the Pontiff exercises full, supreme, and immediate power in the Church entire, and it is his divine right to exercise this according to his conscience, per §II.I.1.1. Any arbitrary limitation limits this power and is an insult to the College which has just agreed by vote that the current Pontiff possesses that power and authority.

 

“I further disagree strongly with the five points under §II.II.6.6. Most of this point is superlative to current Canon Law and unnecessary, but I must strongly question subsection 6.C. No man is allowed to put himself forward for election. The Pontiff is the voice of GOD, and if he chooses to appoint a rebuked Pontiff as Cardinal, that is his choice. The College acts under the authority of GOD and, if it chooses, it may select a rebuked Pontiff as Pontiff.

 

“Lastly, §II.II.6.7 is unnecessary, as a rebuked Pontiff is a simple member of clergy, subject to the jurisdiction of Canon Law per normal.

 

“Thank you.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Round I. comes to an end, the Chamberlain @Proddyannounces the end of the commentary. Everyone is summoned to vote in this round 2. Any response from this point on that is not a vote will be counted as an abstain. Everyone is asked to see if they have already voted or not below.

 

I). To receive a mandate to completely overhaul the structuring & typography of the current Canon Law.

AYE:

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

ABSTAIN:

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

II). To add a stipulation to Canon Law that makes the (Princely) Archdioceses of Providentia, Jorenus & Albarosa permanent within the Holy Mother Church, in name and in scope. 

AYE:

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

III). To update the definitions in Book II, Title II. Chapter III., expanding the Curia roles currently present & outlining their tasks more concretely. This involves the addition of the new roles already granted, and to add onto the existing descriptions the de facto tasks of each curia role as well. 

AYE:

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

NAY:

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

 

IV). To change in Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., that only one attributable miracle is necessary for sainthood: as not all current saints have two.

AYE:

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

V). To add in Book V, Title II, Chapter I that inciting sedition against, questioning the legitimacy of or conspiring to harm the High Pontiff commits a crime and excommunicates himself automatically. This would involve a law stipulation that specifies what circumstances would justify such: such as disputing a legitimate election, or inciting violence against the High Pontiff as a person.

AYE:

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

VI). To add in Book V, Title II a chapter that describes Papal Briefs. 

AYE:

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

VII). To overhaul Book VI, Title II. Chapter III., rendering Minor Bulls ‘Archdiocesan Decrees’ and further streamlining them with the Golden Bulls of His Holiness.

AYE:

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

NAY:

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

 

VIII). [REMOVED]

 

IX). To add in BOOK VII, Title I, that the High Pontiff may, on his own accord, assume the role of judge within a trial, and overturn the ruling of a lesser judge with a majority of the cardinals backing such. This would require prior approval from the College of Cardinals and should principally be only used in severely important procedures. 

AYE:

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Otho Episcopus Valwyck

Abbot Antonius Mihailo Visconti

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Monsignor Robert de Bourdon

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

NAY:

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

Vicary Episcopus Rochefort

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

XIV). Basil's proposal to remove interdiction

AYE:

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

NAY:

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

 

XV). Basil's proposal for tithes

AYE:

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

NAY:

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

 

XVI). Basil's proposal for new laws pertaining to the rebuking of the High Pontiff.

AYE:

NAY:

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

 

XVII). Basil's proposal pertaining to indulgences.

AYE:

NAY:

Sanctitas Pontifex Maximus Owyn III

Father Lajos Sandor Károly

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Francisco Episcopus Hyspia

Adelric Episcopus Esbec

----CARDINALS ONLY VOTE----

X). Although it is within the High Pontiff’s authority to venerate any Canonist at will, His Holiness seeks to gain popular approval for his nominees regardless: 

X.I).Empress Anne the August of Novellen 

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar


X.II). His Holiness the High Pontiff James II PASSED

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa


X.III). His Holiness the High Pontiff Pontian III PASSED

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa


X.IV). Governor-General Richard de Reden REJECTED

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

NAY:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia


X.V). Vicar Lemuel de Langford REJECTED

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

NAY:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

 

X.VI). Father Pius of Sutica PASSED

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

 

X.VII). Anton Barclay PASSED

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

 

XI). To beautify
XI.I). Cardinal Erasmus von Getreide of Ves

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

 

XI.II). Queen Viktoria var Ruthern of Haense

AYE:

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

 

XI.III). Krisztián Cardinalis Ves

AYE:

NAY:

 

XI.IV). Queen Maya of Muldav

AYE:

NAY:

 

XII). To beautify, and then proceed to Canonize
XII.I). Andrik ‘I’ Vydra 
PASSED

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:


XII.II). John of Carnatia 

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa


XII.III). Jasper of Renzfeld

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

 

XII.IV). Otto II of Haense

AYE:

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

 

XIII). To Canonize, 
XIII.I). Vytenis of Luciensport

AYE:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

NAY:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

 


XIII.II). High Pontiff Everard II  PASSED

AYE:

Benedict Cardinalis Jorenus

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

 

Edited by Draeris
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfred Episcopus Henrikev stands up, saying "For Basil's four proposals, which are XIV, XV, XVI and VVII,

I say - Nay.", before taking a seat again.

Edited by repl1ca
Link to post
Share on other sites

Venerations:

Empress Anne the August of Novellen - NAY
High Pontiff James II - AYE
High Pontiff Pontian III - AYE
Governor-General Richard de Reden - NAY
Vicar Lemuel de Langford - NAY

Father Pius of Sutica - AYE

Cardinal Anton Barclay - AYE

 

Beatifications:

Cardinal Erasmus von Getreide of Ves - NAY

Queen Viktoria var Ruthern of Haense - NAY

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ailred votes:

 

I). To receive a mandate to completely overhaul the structuring & typography of the current Canon Law.

- ABSTAIN

 

II). To add a stipulation to Canon Law that makes the (Princely) Archdioceses of Providentia, Jorenus & Albarosa permanent within the Holy Mother Church, in name and in scope. 

- NAY

 

III). To update the definitions in Book II, Title II. Chapter III., expanding the Curia roles currently present & outlining their tasks more concretely. This involves the addition of the new roles already granted, and to add onto the existing descriptions the de facto tasks of each curia role as well. 

- AYE

 

IV). To change in Book IV, Title IV, Chapter III., that only one attributable miracle is necessary for sainthood: as not all current saints have two.

- NAY

 

V). To add in Book V, Title II, Chapter I that inciting sedition against, questioning the legitimacy of or conspiring to harm the High Pontiff commits a crime and excommunicates himself automatically. This would involve a law stipulation that specifies what circumstances would justify such: such as disputing a legitimate election, or inciting violence against the High Pontiff as a person.

- NAY

 

VI). To add in Book V, Title II a chapter that describes Papal Briefs. 

- NAY

 

VII). To overhaul Book VI, Title II. Chapter III., rendering Minor Bulls ‘Archdiocesan Decrees’ and further streamlining them with the Golden Bulls of His Holiness.

- AYE

 

VIII). [REMOVED]

 

IX). To add in BOOK VII, Title I, that the High Pontiff may, on his own accord, assume the role of judge within a trial, and overturn the ruling of a lesser judge with a majority of the cardinals backing such. This would require prior approval from the College of Cardinals and should principally be only used in severely important procedures. 

- NAY

 

XIV). Basil's proposal to remove interdiction

- AYE

 

XV). Basil's proposal for tithes

- AYE

 

XVI). Basil's proposal for new laws pertaining to the rebuking of the High Pontiff.

- NAY

 

XVII). Basil's proposal pertaining to indulgences.

- NAY

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Draeris said:

XI.II). Queen Viktoria var Ruthern of Haense

 

AYE:

Ailred Cardinalis Reinmar

Manfried Cardinalis Providentia

NAY:

Pelagius Cardinalis Albarosa

Father Dima Carrion stood up to speak,

 

"While I do believe this ecumenical council to be rushed in the first 'phase' compared to that of the ecumenical coucil I attended under James II-- for what sake I do not understand-- I want to state that while it may be possible for Queen Viktoria to be a blessed, it is against Canon Law to even suggest she is. According to Canon Law, Chapter 4 §3, a Blessed must, "Have been deceased for more than five years,". While I have never met Queen Viktoria, who might I add is my aunt to show familial ties to her, to claim she is blessed is invalid as she has not passed in 1802 and it is 1804. And again, there are no stated miracles attributed to Queen Viktoria. Should you want to change the Canon Law for either of these reasons, I would be more than happy to vote, however, as of now, it is against Canon Law. So, again, I advocate for her veneration alongside the addition of Queen Maya of Muldav who is a just woman. I also call for the council to spend more time deliberating as this mistake is glaring and yet there are already votes on the issue. Do we wish for an ecumenical council to be guided by the Lord...? Then let us think before acting, brothers.

 

Dima peered into the eyes of Owyn III as he said his words, sitting down right after.

 

Spoiler
1 - The beatification of Queen Viktoria var Ruthern is invalid because she has passed within two years opposed to the five required. She also has no miracles attributed to her. He calls for her veneration instead.
Spoiler

§3. In order to be considered for beatification must: 

  1. Have been deceased for more than five years,
  2. Be a Canonist, or proven to be so after death,
  3. Have lived a holy life,
  4. Have one verified miracle attributed to their intercession after death 

 

 
2 - The urging for the veneration of Queen Maya of Muldav to the Cardinals.
 
3 - Allowing for the ecumenical council to have more time taken for it so that the errors made by clergy be resolved.

 

Edited by JoanOfArc
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...