Bring back the papal tiara?

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Actually, the Supreme Pontiff has already laid down the papal tiara.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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

I knew that was coming. I didn’t insult the Church, I never would, but by your comments to my post you would think I did. Rightly so if I did, but I didn’t. I really think you just misunderstand what I meant.

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.

I am sorry if I come off as arrogant, that is not my intention I assure you.

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.”

I’m sure you’ve read the whole thing, but here it is regardless:

“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope Paul VI

Once again, I DO NOT THINK THE COUNCIL ERRED. Was it unwise? Well almost every Pope who preceded Pope John XXIII thought it would be a bad idea when the “urge” to call a council came about. I also remember hearing something about Pope John XXIII on his deathbed demanding they stop the council. Pope Paul VI above also seems to think it was unwise. As far as the fruits; the fact that so many Catholics were able to misrepresent what the Council actually said proves to me that the fruits weren’t exactly good. I don’t blame this entirely on the Council, but also on the turbulent times that occurred during the 60’s and 70’s. The Council didn’t help in my opinion, but it definitely wasn’t the sole cause. Would this make me a bad Catholic because I believe this? I don’t think it does in the least, as I regard the Council as valid, and know what it actually says. The Church doesn’t require that I think that the Council was a good idea, but only that I believe it is valid, and am obediant to its teachings.

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

Thank you very much.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

I agree.

 

[ncjohn]

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.

I guess it depends on how one thinks we should bring people to the message of Christ.

The apostles did it by living lives of humility and modeling the peace of Christ. The early Church grew by leaps and bounds, despite great persecution and the ever-present danger of martyrdom, because people recognized that message and found what Jesus offered being modeled by those who led the Church.

In contrast, the Church eventually came out from under the threat of persecution and moved to the top of the heap, often in both Church and temporal power. And in doing so they took on all the trappings of secular temporal power, including at many times the tremendous corruption that so often goes with absolute temporal power. It eventually became so bad that it led to the Reformation.

Should the Pope and the hierarchy dress and live as the Apostles did? I personally don’t see a way that one can live with the trappings that they have taken on, even less the tiara, and proclaim the message of Jesus without looking hypocritical. We have so bought into the idea that one has to look powerful to be powerful that we have forgotten the message of Jesus as to how temporal power and riches would corrupt. I’m not sure that the saying about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven can’t just as easily be applied to a Church caught up in the trappings of the world.

Jesus made it clear that we are to be in the world but not OF the world. Jesus didn’t get his message across by wearing crowns of gold; he got it across by willingly living contrary to the expectations of “the world” and wearing a crown of thorns.

I’m not suggesting that the Vatican needs to go sell off everything it has and wander around like Francis of Assisi. But I’m not suggesting that maybe they shouldn’t either. We sure had a whole lot more committed Catholics in the days when the Apostles were more committed to the message and the Messenger than to the trappings.

If we really want to be taken seriously as representing the message of Christ, it’s time to take the message seriously. I don’t do that any better than anyone else unfortunately–though I know I need to–as I too have bought in far too much to the system. But I’m working on it, slowly but surely. I’ll likely never really arrive in this life but as Mother Teresa once said, “we’re not called to be successful; we’re called to be faithful.” (at least I’m pretty sure it was Mother Teresa?)

Peace,

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I knew that was coming. I didn’t insult the Church, I never would, but by your comments to my post you would think I did. Rightly so if I did, but I didn’t. I really think you just misunderstand what I meant.

My apologies then.

I am sorry if I come off as arrogant, that is not my intention I assure you.

Good to know and again my apologies.

I’m sure you’ve read the whole thing, but here it is regardless:

“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope Paul VI

Once again, I DO NOT THINK THE COUNCIL ERRED. Was it unwise? Well almost every Pope who preceded Pope John XXIII thought it would be a bad idea when the “urge” to call a council came about. I also remember hearing something about Pope John XXIII on his deathbed demanding they stop the council. Pope Paul VI above also seems to think it was unwise. As far as the fruits; the fact that so many Catholics were able to misrepresent what the Council actually said proves to me that the fruits weren’t exactly good. I don’t blame this entirely on the Council, but also on the turbulent times that occurred during the 60’s and 70’s. The Council didn’t help in my opinion, but it definitely wasn’t the sole cause. Would this make me a bad Catholic because I believe this? I don’t think it does in the least, as I regard the Council as valid, and know what it actually says. The Church doesn’t require that I think that the Council was a good idea, but only that I believe it is valid, and am obediant to its teachings.

First, I would say that “as far as fruits” go, Scripture Itself can be misrepresented. Does that make Scripture “not exactly good?” Second, Blessed John XXIII’s alledged call to “Stop the Council!” has never, ever been reliably proven. The man who first asserted that he said it admitted that he had not heard the pope say that and that he had not even been in the room. So we can probably chalk that up to urban myth. Third, if every pope who had misgivings about calling a council, either himself or because his predecessors didn’t think it was a good idea, failed then to call said council, I doubt that we would have ever had ANY councils, all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem. They’re notoriously rambunctious and there is always serious upheaval in the years following a Council (all of them). As for Pope Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan,” it is certainly not clear to me (nor to his successors, apparently) that Pope Paul was speaking of the council or of the fruits of the council. He may have been addressing the false"spirit of Vatican II", certainly, but he doesn’t seem to indicate that he thought the council unwise. Finally, while I suppose you’ve a right to think a this or any council wasn’t a great idea, I have to go back to your use of the term “unwise.” I don’t mean to be insulting, but this is along the lines of what my elders would have asked me (except they were Southern Baptists): Who are you (or who am I, for that matter) to sit in judgment of the Vicar of Christ on Earth and an Ecumenical Council? At the age of 22, who are you to set your judgment and wisdom against the judgment and wisdom of these? “By what authority,” as it were?

 

[Lepanto]

Its not done to appease them per se’ though it can be viewed that way because certain claims they have made contain elements of truth that are noteworthy. And also they are our seperated brethren. We need to be compassionate to them as best were able. Have you read Vatican II?

Please provide the pertinent citation frm VII. Help us out here.

 

[Lepanto]

At the age of 22, who are you to set your judgment and wisdom against the judgment and wisdom of these? “By what authority,” as it were?

How old must one be to in order to make observations of the evidence and formulate a cogent conclusion?

 

[SemperFidelis]

First, I would say that “as far as fruits” go, Scripture Itself can be misrepresented. Does that make Scripture “not exactly good?”

Funny thing is, I actually used this argument against a sedevacantist once, so I see your point here.

Second, Blessed John XXIII’s alledged call to “Stop the Council!” has never, ever been reliably proven. The man who first asserted that he said it admitted that he had not heard the pope say that and that he had not even been in the room. So we can probably chalk that up to urban myth.

Never heard this before, but thanks for clearing it up.

Third, if every pope who had misgivings about calling a council, either himself or because his predecessors didn’t think it was a good idea, failed then to call said council, I doubt that we would have ever had ANY councils, all the way back to the Council of Jerusalem. They’re notoriously rambunctious and there is always serious upheaval in the years following a Council (all of them). As for Pope Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan,” it is certainly not clear to me (nor to his successors, apparently) that Pope Paul was speaking of the council or of the fruits of the council. He may have been addressing the false"spirit of Vatican II", certainly, but he doesn’t seem to indicate that he thought the council unwise. Finally, while I suppose you’ve a right to think a this or any council wasn’t a great idea, I have to go back to your use of the term “unwise.” I don’t mean to be insulting, but this is along the lines of what my elders would have asked me (except they were Southern Baptists): Who are you (or who am I, for that matter) to sit in judgment of the Vicar of Christ on Earth and an Ecumenical Council? At the age of 22, who are you to set your judgment and wisdom against the judgment and wisdom of these? “By what authority,” as it were?

Fair enough. I see how I came across as somewhat judgmental. I must say though that that was not my intention. I still think that it probably wasn’t a good idea that the Council was called, while at the same time I also believe the Council is valid. I know many good Catholics in union with Rome who believe this as well. These are just personal opinions and I believe that they are in no way a denial of anything the Church teaches. I will put it at that and let this thread get back on topic.

 

[brotherhrolf]

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?

I read that he was pressured into wearing it. I didn’t see his installation. I had just started a new job. This was before VCRs.

I’m not worried about our young priests and in my entire life, I’ve only kissed an archbishop’s ring once…when I was senior altar boy at the consecration of our new parish church in 1967. I’d kiss Abp. Hannan’s ring today…he’s still alive and he was a chaplain who parachuted into Europe on D-Day.

My beloved bishop back in the early 90s was a solid supporter of my cathedral choir. He came to our Christmas parties. DW and I would rise when he came to talk to us. “Please, don’t stand up”, he would say. I see his example as a servant of the servants of God. Such humility.

I think the FSSP et al need to be “shocking” in that so much has been forgotten. I don’t think it will go to their heads. I can assure you that I never kissed a priest’s hands in all the years I was an altar boy before V II. They’re just pulling out “all the stops” because there is such fear about the TLM.

They forget those of us back in the late 60s who were never happy with the “reforms” or how quickly we had them implemented (less than two years). We didn’t protest back then because we were in obedience to the magisterium of HMC. Forty plus years later our voices are being heard. Respect. Reverence.

My friend, JKirk. I wouldn’t worry. My current bishop became the chaplain of my Catholic high school the year after I graduated - 1970. He “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio. I simply don’t see a wholesale return to the TLM. But these young folks might just provide enough impetus to return us to the reverence I knew as a teenager.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How old must one be to in order to make observations of the evidence and formulate a cogent conclusion?

Old enough to realize one isn’t wise enough might be a start.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My friend, JKirk. I wouldn’t worry. My current bishop became the chaplain of my Catholic high school the year after I graduated - 1970. He “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio. I simply don’t see a wholesale return to the TLM. But these young folks might just provide enough impetus to return us to the reverence I knew as a teenager.

On the contrary, BroRolf, I do not believe that the Church will stand two forms for very long (long in terms of the Church, that is) and if one must go, I do not see how nor do I think it should be the Tridentine. You know, of course, that I’m hoping it will be in both Latin AND the vernacular, but I think it will be the Tridentine, not because the Tridentine will become more popular, but because I think what most people care MOST about on this subject is that Mass be in their own lingo and the Tridentine will enevitably BE in the vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Funny thing is, I actually used this argument against a sedevacantist once, so I see your point here.

Never heard this before, but thanks for clearing it up.

Fair enough. I see how I came across as somewhat judgmental. I must say though that that was not my intention. I still think that it probably wasn’t a good idea that the Council was called, while at the same time I also believe the Council is valid. I know many good Catholics in union with Rome who believe this as well. These are just personal opinions and I believe that they are in no way a denial of anything the Church teaches. I will put it at that and let this thread get back on topic.

Fair enough, you are most gracious.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

How old must one be to in order to make observations of the evidence and formulate a cogent conclusion?

22 is fine. It’s your arguments that count, not your age.

 

[DustinsDad]

And for everyone who wants to see what we’re all talking about - here’s a uniqe blast from the past…the papal coronation of Pope Pius XII:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrs0w0cilCc

Wow!

The tiara goes on at about 6:05.

I especially was struck by the massive crowd hitting their knees for the first papal blessing (this at about 6:50).

Now I can see a personal preference against such things - sort of. But it blows me away just how against such things folks are. It’s pretty awesome in my eyes…just so authoritative. Maybe that’s what folks don’t like.

But then I think, what if it was St. Peter up there - how would we treat him? How would we honor him? Because in a way…he is.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Now I can see a personal preference against such things - sort of. But it blows me away just how against such things folks are. It’s pretty awesome in my eyes**…just so authoritative. Maybe that’s what folks don’t like.**

I don’t think the lack of the tiara diminishes the papal authority one whit and I don’t think people posting here don’t like the tiara because it’s authoritative. A miter and a crozier are authoritative as well. I think it goes to the difference between the picture we have of Christ in the New Testament and the visual symbols of a triumphalistic papacy as an earthly power. It is, of course, even now an earthly power, but it derives it’s authority from another source than other earthly powers and is different from other earthly powers, one that has symbols or visual pictures of the Lord and Master stooping to wash His disciple’s feet, one that talks about the value of humbling oneself and the “first shall be last and the last first” when the topic of thrones comes up. There’s always going to be a jarring note there when the tiara is brought up that won’t be with the cathedra (a traditional symbol of episcopal authority that goes back to St. Peter) or the miter (that has antedents even in the Jewish priesthood) or the crozier (a symbolic shepherd’s staff). The papacy stepped into a power vaccum in the west at a time when it had to do so. That was never it’s first and primary purpose. It’s simply how history played out. The triregnum may have been a needed symbol at that time, but when Paul VI put it aside, that was AS important a symbol at ITS time.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Old enough to realize one isn’t wise enough might be a start.

That is quite presumptuous and assuming of you. I wouldn’t make blanket statements regarding the wisdom of others. I have seen some younger than me go “head-to-head” with you on these fora and do quite well. If they were unwise, then you are equally so for your comment.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That is quite presumptuous and assuming of you. I wouldn’t make blanket statements regarding the wisdom of others. I have seen some younger than me go “head-to-head” with you on these fora and do quite well. If they were unwise, then you are equally so for your comment.

That wasn’t aimed at you at all. It was a general remark. I found in my life that LIFE itself taught me that I wasn’t as wise as I once thought myself. That’s all I meant. AND I still believe that a deference is owed by all us when it comes to sitting in judgment of the Vicar of Christ, but I think that it is particularly owed by those who haven’t even lived as long as some of those Vicars carried that awful burden. We’ll agree to disagree on that score. As for going head to head with me, that’s just it: I’m not so sure of MY position, I’m only sure of the Church’s. I don’t presume to second guess Her or set my wisdom against hers or the magisterium, the council, the pope, etc.

 

[Joab_Anias]

A great paradox in Christianity…

Humility Of Heart.

Our Lord said,
“Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart.” (Matt 11:29)
And also,
“Amen, I say to you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt 18:3)
A virtue typical of all Saints - the one virtue that underlies every other virtue and without which none of us will enter Heaven.
“Impregnate yourself with humility, and you will soon find that all other virtues will follow without any effort on your part.”
Humility:
A prominent Christian grace (Rom. 12:3; 15:17, 18; 1 Cor. 3:5-7; 2 Cor. 3:5; Phil. 4:11-13).
It is a state of mind well pleasing to God (1 Pet. 3:4);
It preserves the soul in tranquility (Ps. 69:32, 33), and makes us patient under trials (Job 1:22).
Christ has set us an example of humility (Phil. 2:6-8).
We should be led thereto by a remembrance of our sins (Lam. 3:39),
and by the thought that it is the way to honor (Prov. 16:18), and that the greatest promises are made to the humble (Ps. 147:6; Isa. 57:15; 66:2; 1 Pet. 5:5).
It is a “great paradox in Christianity that it makes humility the avenue to glory.”

 

[DustinsDad]

I don’t think the lack of the tiara diminishes the papal authority one whit …

No of course not - but it expresses it a bit more clearly IMHO.

The reverse is true as well…the outward expressions of authority don’t take away one whit from the reality that the pope is both the ultimate earthly authority *and *the servant of the servants of God .

The two various realities (humility and authority) are just that…two non-exclusive realities of the office of the successor of Peter.

Know what I mean?

A miter and a crozier are authoritative as well.

Absolutely.

I think it goes to the difference between the picture we have of Christ in the New Testament and the visual symbols of a triumphalistic papacy as an earthly power.

I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from…“triumphalistic papacy” is sort of a loaded term. Sounds borderline anti-Catholic and borderline protestant to my ears. Sorry.

I mean the successor of Peter is the Vicar of Christ on earth is he not? Just because he is* in* the world, and the office is* in* the world, does not mean it is *of *the world. I mean, that’s the mistake non-catholics make to begin with no?

It is, of course, even now an earthly power, but it derives it’s authority from another source than other earthly powers and is different from other earthly powers,

Okay - so we agree here. Except perhaps that I don’t think the tiara takes away from this or “hides” this reality.

one that has symbols or visual pictures of the Lord and Master stooping to wash His disciple’s feet, one that talks about the value of humbling oneself and the “first shall be last and the last first” when the topic of thrones comes up.

Agreed - and it’s because of this understanding that we honor the pope so much … it’s precisely because of this reality - and because as Catholics we *know *he is the servant of the servant of God. I mean - this is the faithful honoring the office of the pope, we’re venerating him, he is not venerating or honoring himself. We be the one’s doin’ that .

There’s also the outward expression of authority that goes along with the office (and which many might just need to be reminded of from time to time…not talking of you but of the cafeteria catholic variety). I mean the Lord washed the feet of the Apostles - but he also didn’t chastise Mary Magdelene when she annointed his head with oil - or the folks on Palm Sunday who hailed Him as King.

I mean, let’s take Pope Pius XII for example since we have the video of his coronation…if you read his encyclicals, do you get a sense of pride? I don’t. I get the sense of explicit and clear authority coupled with an awesome humility.

Ultimately - all of our expressions of love, respect, adulation - whatever - all are bound up in and give glory to the Lord because we are honoring those people and/or offices that He has grafted onto Himself so to speak,

There’s always going to be a jarring note there when the tiara is brought up that won’t be with the cathedra (a traditional symbol of episcopal authority that goes back to St. Peter) or the miter (that has antedents even in the Jewish priesthood) or the crozier (a symbolic shepherd’s staff). The papacy stepped into a power vaccum in the west at a time when it had to do so. That was never it’s first and primary purpose. It’s simply how history played out.

I guess for some folks it’s jarring…I just don’t see it that way. Seems perfectly in line with our catholic understanding of the office of the pope.

And don’t forget - some folks get jarred simply by the popemobile or the white outfit or even just by the huge crowds of faithful coming to just catch a glimpse of the Holy Father. I mean, it’s just a matter of how far we want to go not to “jar” people. I mean, I can understand not wanting to place a “stumbling block” to converts…but I think you’d have to take more than the tiara away to achieve a perfectly “smooth” road. We needn’t go to far.

I think we also need to be careful of being “embarassed” by “looking too catholic”. Sometimes you just gotta be who you are .

The triregnum may have been a needed symbol at that time, but when Paul VI put it aside, that was AS important a symbol at ITS time.

Perhaps. But if and when a future pope brings the previous symbol back, you won’t mind if I cheer will ya?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[thecoach]

Because he is the Vicar of Christ on earth for crying out loud . Unique amont the apostles/bishops. Honor him as such. The tiara is simply a beautiful and historic way of expressing this reality.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

funny, I dont recall mention of Christ wearing such a thing, His crown was of thorns. Popes would do well to follow Peter in his humility, as he asked to be crucified upside down because he didnt feel worthy of the exact same punishment as Christ.