tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post4011419699437962216..comments2024-03-28T02:22:35.857-07:00Comments on The Eponymous Flower: The Exclusion -- The jus exclusivaeTancredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-66466398380205723712013-03-28T00:44:53.857-07:002013-03-28T00:44:53.857-07:00Ironies ? And Czarist Russia, the Last Czar...iro...Ironies ? And Czarist Russia, the Last Czar...irony. A sad event.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-77553023870416157082013-03-27T23:21:44.607-07:002013-03-27T23:21:44.607-07:00I do not see it mentioned here, but I have seen it...I do not see it mentioned here, but I have seen it asserted in other places, that the Emperor also suspected Cardinal Rampolla of being a Freemason. But then no less than Blessed Pius IX had been the subject of an attempted veto by Franz Joseph's uncle and predecessor, the Emperor Ferdinand, amid similar suspicions. That veto only failed because the Imperial representative who was to present it, Cardinal Gaisruck, the Archbishop of Milan, arrived at the conclave too late, after the election was already over.<br /><br />In Rampolla's case, there apparently may also have been a personal grudge at play. As Cardinal Secretary of State, he is said to have opposed the dispensation (which was ultimately granted) allowing the Christian burial of Franz Joseph's only son, Crown Prince Rudolf, after the latter's death in an apparent suicide pact (or murder-suicide) with his seventeen-year-old mistress.<br /><br />The <i>jus exclusivæ</i> was controversial, anyway. Whether it was an ancient right or not is disputed. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is of the opinion that the modern concept cannot be traced back before the conclave of 1644, though similar rights may have been exercised by Holy Roman Emperors at an earlier period. While a number of treatises were written in its defense, it appears to directly contradict decrees of several popes, including Pius IV, Clement XII (himself elected after two other candidates had been excluded at the behest of Philip V of Spain), and the aforementioned Pius IX. Reportedly, most of the cardinals in 1903 were generally very unhappy about its revival (ignoring the failed attempt in 1846, it had last been invoked in 1830, after having been a feature of every conclave from 1691 on), and only acquiesced to it for sake of expediency. In fact, Cardinal Puzyna was tasked with presenting it only after Cardinal Gruscha had refused on principle.<br /><br />It could be noted that, despite the "cold shower" to Austria-Hungary which abolishing the veto represented, Saint Pius X did soften the blow somewhat by opting not to retain Rampolla as Secretary of State, replacing him with Cardinal Merry del Val. Subsequently, in 1907, he also removed Rampolla's personal secretary of more than twenty years, Giacomo della Chiesa, from the Secretariat of State, by appointing him Archbishop of Bologna instead. Although the incumbent of that see was customarily made a cardinal at the first opportunity, Della Chiesa would be passed over through multiple consistories over the next six-and-a-half years — reputedly because it was not desired that there should be "two Rampollas" in the Sacred College. Only in May of 1914 would he finally receive his Red Hat, having been the celebrant at the funeral of his of friend and benefactor the previous December. For his part, in 1904, Cardinal Puzyna received from the Emperor the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary.<br /><br />In any event, though Rampolla did not live to see it, when Saint Pius died in August of 1914, it was none other than the newly-elevated Cardinal della Chiesa who was elected pope and became Benedict XV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com