Bring back the papal tiara?

[SemperFidelis]

Have you read Vatican II?

Have you read anything that came before Vatican II? Trying reading the documents in light of what they said (ie: Tradition).

 

[Mannyfit75]

St. Peter didn’t have an airplane or the PopeMobile either.

Benedict is going to have a tough time getting around!

You also forgot the other reason why I don’t think the tiara is proper. He is a the Servant of the Servants of God. To have the tiara come back would be to degrade that title, which is his highest title. We don’t need it.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Have you read anything that came before Vatican II? Trying reading the documents in light of what they said (ie: Tradition).

Sure have, from the beginning and have come to view traditionalism as big of a mistake as modernism or syncretism. It took years of prayer for wisdom though and it actually took me 10 years to realize some of the fruit of Vat II that is still being realized as wisdom much greater than I may ever recieve.

You didn’t answer if you had read it or not?

Peace.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Sure have, from the beginning and have come to view traditionalism as big of a mistake as modernism or syncretism.

How can you view Tradition as a mistake, when it is regarded by the Church as equal to Sacred Scripture?

You didn’t answer if you had read it or not?

Not all sixteen documents. I’ve read all four constitutions, one of the nine decrees (Unitatis Redintegratio), and two of the three declarations (Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate). So seven of sixteen documents in their entirety, and I have read small portions of the other documents. There is no error in Vatican II, but I would hardly call the Council wise, or the fruits of the Council good.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I can’t believe this. I honestly think, they did away with the Tiara, sedia, and the ostrich feathers. Then they did away with the jeweled mitres, and the maniple. What’s next? “Well let’s get rid of the mitres, stoles, chasubles, and albs.” I can here the future liberals saying. “The Apostles didn’t wear vestments.” Then even the cassock disappears. Then we have Popes in suits and ties. The Church could come to ruin in the name of “humility.” I can hear the Orthodox laughing already…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How can you view Tradition as a mistake, when it is regarded by the Church as equal to Sacred Scripture?

Not all sixteen documents. I’ve read all four constitutions, one of the nine decrees (Unitatis Redintegratio), and two of the three declarations (Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate). So seven of sixteen documents in their entirety, and I have read small portions of the other documents. There is no error in Vatican II, but I would hardly call the Council wise, or the fruits of the Council good.

You’re not even a Catholic yet, but you presume to sit in judgement of an ecumenical council? You might want to rethink RCIA, since the post-conciliar Church is going to be as much a part of the Church as the pre-conciliar Church. And bear in mind, the Fathers of the Council were formed by the pre-conciliar Church AND the pre-conciliar Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I can’t believe this. I honestly think, they did away with the Tiara, sedia, and the ostrich feathers. Then they did away with the jeweled mitres, and the maniple. What’s next? “Well let’s get rid of the mitres, stoles, chasubles, and albs.” I can here the future liberals saying. “The Apostles didn’t wear vestments.” Then even the cassock disappears. Then we have Popes in suits and ties. The Church could come to ruin in the name of “humility.” I can hear the Orthodox laughing already…

I very much doubt it will be as bad as that. And the setting aside of the tiara, the sedia, etc., is as powerful a symbol as those symbols themselves.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I very much doubt it will be as bad as that. And the setting aside of the tiara, the sedia, etc., is as powerful a symbol as those symbols themselves.

Every journey starts with just one step, good or bad.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Every journey starts with just one step, good or bad.

Certainly, but we have to trust the wisdom of the Church. The tiara served its purpose for the time that it was used and it served an even greater purpose when Pope Paul set it aside and his successors declined to use it.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Certainly, but we have to trust the wisdom of the Church. The tiara served its purpose for the time that it was used and it served an even greater purpose when Pope Paul set it aside and his successors declined to use it.

You think so? In my eyes, and there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong, it takes more humility to simply obey over one thousand years of tradition than to cast it all off in the name of humility? I mean, the Papacy was fine from the time of Leo XIII. All Popes from Pius IX were humble men, they just submitted themselves to the office. Do you think for a second that when Benedict XV, or Pius XII, or John XXIII for that matter, put on the Tiara thought that they were better than anyone else? I highly doubt it. But when the Faithful see him upon his throne, in jewel encrusted vestments, that he was something special. That’s what the “pomp” was about all along,.

 

[Joab_Anias]

How can you view Tradition as a mistake, when it is regarded by the Church as equal to Sacred Scripture?

I don’t view tradition as a mistake. Traditionalism is entirely different. Tradition tells us to be at peace and respect the Church and where it steers us. Not getting stuck and hungup on where its been.

Not all sixteen documents. I’ve read all four constitutions, one of the nine decrees (Unitatis Redintegratio), and two of the three declarations (Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate). So seven of sixteen documents in their entirety, and I have read small portions of the other documents.

That is really great!

There is no error in Vatican II, but I would hardly call the Council wise, or the fruits of the Council good.

I’m confused. You admit there is no error in Vat II but feel it was unwise at the same time?

I suspect the things you see as bad could be misinterpretations.

Give it time my friend and keep your focus on Jesus. All the errors will become entrusted to Him.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You think so? In my eyes, and there’s always the possibility that I’m wrong, it takes more humility to simply obey over one thousand years of tradition than to cast it all off in the name of humility? I mean, the Papacy was fine from the time of Leo XIII. All Popes from Pius IX were humble men, they just submitted themselves to the office. Do you think for a second that when Benedict XV, or Pius XII, or John XXIII for that matter, put on the Tiara thought that they were better than anyone else? I highly doubt it. But when the Faithful see him upon his throne, in jewel encrusted vestments, that he was something special. That’s what the “pomp” was about all along,.

I think we see the pope as something special anyway. And I would still maintain that the setting aside of the tiara was far better a symbol of itself (the act itself) than the tiara itself. And I think the argument that it requires humility to accept 1000 years of tradition in this regard is a little on the precious side. It wouldn’t have required anything, but laziness or timidity, for all we know… I’m not saying that it DID, but neither can you classify the willingness to get rid of it as a LACK of humility. We should take Paul VI at his word. Besides, it doesn’t invite good comparisons, ie “Our Lord had a crown of thorns,” etc.

I really think lots of the young people who want it back on these fora are just a tad over-enthralled with romantic notions of what the Church and all She entails should be.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You’re not even a Catholic yet, but you presume to sit in judgement of an ecumenical council? You might want to rethink RCIA, since the post-conciliar Church is going to be as much a part of the Church as the pre-conciliar Church. And bear in mind, the Fathers of the Council were formed by the pre-conciliar Church AND the pre-conciliar Mass.

Whoa, easy there. You act like I just insulted your momma. I remember explicity saying that the Second Vatican Council taught no error, but that there are liberals who have misconstrued it (either purposely or out of ignorance of what the Council Documents actually say). I never said the post-conciliar wasn’t just as much apart of the Church as the pre-conciliar Church. You are putting words in my mouth. As to the fruits of Vatican II, even Pope Paul VI agreed with my comments there. Even a protestant who knows little of the Church can figure that out.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I don’t view tradition as a mistake. Traditionalism is entirely different. Tradition tells us to be at peace and respect the Church and where it steers us. Not getting stuck and hungup on where its been.

Yes Church Tradition and Traditionalism are something different, but I usually find it is Traditional Catholics who are more faithful and have more respect for that very Tradition.

I’m confused. You admit there is no error in Vat II but feel it was unwise at the same time?

Read below.

I suspect the things you see as bad could be misinterpretations.

Correct. The Council has been poorly misinterpreted by many since 1965.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I really think lots of the young people who want it back on these fora are just a tad over-enthralled with romantic notions of what the Church and all She entails should be.

It’s hard for many to not be romantic about these kind of things. Especially when the Church has been stripped of many of its Traditions since Vatican II, even though the Council didn’t call for any of that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Whoa, easy there. You act like I just insulted your momma. I remember explicity saying that the Second Vatican Council taught no error, but that there are liberals who have misconstrued it (either purposely or out of ignorance of what the Council Documents actually say). I never said the post-conciliar wasn’t just as much apart of the Church as the pre-conciliar Church. You are putting words in my mouth. As to the fruits of Vatican II, even Pope Paul VI agreed with my comments there. Even a protestant who knows little of the Church can figure that out.

A) You kind of did insult my “momma,” the Church.

B) Youthful arrogance is something we’ve already got in the Church, in spades, if these fora are anything to judge by. You might want to check it at the door. You’re in no position to sit in judgement on the Council or the Council fathers or pretty much anyone else at the ripe old age of 22. YOU would hardly call the council wise? Please. And you pretty much identify as a “traditionalist”, don’t you (humility IS, of course, a traditional virtue, last I checked)? That was my point in saying that it was the pre-conciliar Church and Mass that had formed those same council fathers.

C) If you’re talking about the “Smoke of Satan” used by Pope Paul VI, you need to check your sources a bit more carefully. He may have been speaking of the so-called "Spirit of VII,"ie, what others had misrepresented, but he never said it about the “fruits of Vatican II.”

D) I was a Southern Baptist. You’re in my prayers.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s hard for many to not be romantic about these kind of things. Especially when the Church has been stripped of many of its Traditions since Vatican II, even though the Council didn’t call for any of that.

I would agree that we’ve gone too far in many respects, but I think that we could swing back too far the other way and confuse form for substance.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am in complete agreement with my friends NCJohn and JKirkLVNV on this (even though we disagree elsewhere).

I applaud the zeal of you young folks. But as NCJohn and I both know (since we are of an age together), it wasn’t what we experienced as a child in our parishes.

I saw Paul VI being installed as Pope live on TV in 1963 via the first telecommunications satellite, Telstar. What you young folks take as ordinary today was extremely extraordinary back in '63. I also saw the close of Vatican II on TV. It was clear that Paul VI’s placing the tiara on the altar was a sign. Jean Paul I wore it but he was pressured into it. Neither JP II or Benedict XVI have worn it. It is a symbol from the Middle Ages and represents temporal power rather than spiritual.

I’m with you young folks in that I want to see a restoration of the reverence of the Mass. I want to see Gregorian Chant and sacred motets given pride of place. I think every Catholic should be exposed to at least the fundamental responses to either a NO in Latin or to a TLM. But the tiara is an anachronism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am in complete agreement with my friends NCJohn and JKirkLVNV on this (even though we disagree elsewhere).

I applaud the zeal of you young folks. But as NCJohn and I both know (since we are of an age together), it wasn’t what we experienced as a child in our parishes.

I saw Paul VI being installed as Pope live on TV in 1963 via the first telecommunications satellite, Telstar. What you young folks take as ordinary today was extremely extraordinary back in '63. I also saw the close of Vatican II on TV. It was clear that Paul VI’s placing the tiara on the altar was a sign. Jean Paul I wore it but he was pressured into it. Neither JP II or Benedict XVI have worn it. It is a symbol from the Middle Ages and represents temporal power rather than spiritual.

I’m with you young folks in that I want to see a restoration of the reverence of the Mass. I want to see Gregorian Chant and sacred motets given pride of place. I think every Catholic should be exposed to at least the fundamental responses to either a NO in Latin or to a TLM. But the tiara is an anachronism.

I want the same reverence back as well. I’m tired of hearing about abuses and I’m tired of the culture seemingly affecting the Church rather than the Church affecting the culture. I worry, however, that we are shortly going to have a generation of priests who are worried about the amount of lace on their albs and whether or not their hands are being kissed, etc. I worry that we’re going to have a bunch of priests that dream of being addressed as “Your Excellency” and “Your Eminence” and of stepping out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s in the triregnum themselves, rather than priests who view their priesthood as a servanthood in the model of Him came to serve rather than to be served.

Brother HRolf, I don’t think Pope John Paul I wore the tiara, did he?

 

[havemercy]

Lets forget that the Tiara is a symbol of temporal power (though not exclusively)…The apostles probably didn’t wear half the stuff the Pope wears even today, that is, minus the tiara. It is most likely that they didn’t wear anything that symbolized their status - they didn’t have to, at least at the very beginning. By reasoning that Peter didn’t wear a crown, and therefore the vicar of Peter shouldn’t, isn’t really all that…well…relevant. If we buy into such an argument, then we should probably insist that the Pope not dress in white, wear a ring, etc. etc.

When the world is converted, that is when the Supreme Pontiff can lay down the Papal Tiara.