No. Simply that since the King was treated like that (willingly), it’s somewhat incongruous for His Vice-regent to be wearing a crown.So you’re saying that we should scourge Benedict XVI and crown him with piercing thorns and crucify him upside down?
**I don’t think that the tiara would, in this day and age, be read as a symbol of that, were a pope to take it up again. And I think that the Church’s moral authority is still founded upon that apparent contradiction in Scripture: the Master washing His servants feet, the helplessness of Christ on the Cross, the Crown of Thorns, etc. **
I hardly think that adjective is appropriate in connection with the Pope. If you want a pair of crimson shoes, Prada or otherwise, I’m sure you could get them. And Dustin’s Dad is quite correct: we cannot throw away everything. There’s no point to symbols if there are no symbols and vice versa. It’s the meaning attached to symbols that can make them troublesome or useful or even sublime.Okay fine. I think one of you should begin a petition in favor of the Pope giving me his Papal garb, ring, shoes (I’ve been wanting a pair of those burgundy Pradas for some while now), etc. Surely it would be humble of him to discard such things. He’s only the friggin Pope after all.
Sorry, DD, I missed this.
Who says I don’t?
Sounds alot like you. Aren’t you concerned with what it’s “gonna look like” to non-Catholics?
I’ve never seen anything the pope has said about it (would be curious to see such though). Does he share your feelings exactly? I would hazard a doubt he isn’t so emphatically critical of the older tradition.
Personally, I do. I would love it if it came back. Not my decision to make though.
I respect his wisdom and wishes - that’s why I’m not “demanding” that it comes back. See, it’s sort of like when dad says he don’t need a big birthday party…sometimes the kids wish they could throw him a big’n and hope he changes his mind about it - but they respect his wishes nonetheless.
Not familiar with. But does in include every pope prior to Paul VI in this category? Or maybe it was just the tiara wearing ones that were “bad”. If not perhaps you should rethink this reading suggestion as some sort of counterpoint.
Ok. Following that line of reasoning, let me offer a couple of simple examples of why that argument doesn’t work…
Certainly - but in the meantime we are commanded to honor our father and mother, of which the pope falls into this category. And also we are commanded to, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of doublehonor”.
Bingo.
I am also thinking of the fact that the Church, rightfully so, is to act as a “check” on the State. To help Kings and politicians from going over bounds they should not. Thus there should be a complementary (not exclusionary) relationship between Church and State. The Tiara can help symbolize that Christ’s reign is not only in the spiritual sphere. The restriction of the Church’s role only to the spiritual and private sphere is quite strong in our day, and unfortunate.
Bingo, bingo!
Brennan_Doherty:
Thus the refusing of the Tiara, while well intentioned I’m sure, can also symbolize the letting go of a duty of the Church to work with, check, and even chastise temporal rulers when necessary when they violate the moral law in their public duties.
And perhaps the letting go of the Tiara has almost been apropos of this time when the Church seems to exercise less and less influence in the temporal sphere, to the point where even Catholic politicians feel free to ignore the Church’s teachings (along with many Catholics in the voting booth). Perhaps the Tiara would be a good reminder that Christ, via the Church, also has a say in the temporal affairs of man, not just the spiritual.
Excellent post! Wish I’d have wrote it
Peace in Christ,
DusitnsDad
Servants are not usually bowed to or knelt in front of in homage…yet even today, we do that with the Holy Father. For example, the papal mass here in St. Louis a number of years ago, folks that brought up the gifts knelt in front of Pope John Paul II and presented him with the gifts and bowed their heads waiting for the blessing. One group after another came forward in this way - weeping often. Now that action “generally contradicts” how one would act toward a servant. Did it take away from the pope being the Servant of the servants of God? Not at all? It’s just part of his office, his rank, and his God given authority. But see, that’s how it IS with symbols: You don’t think it does detract and I think it does. A symbol doesn’t have to have anything to do with logic (again, look at the Cross). We COULD also think of this as a tipping scale. Miter, pastoral staff, Ring of the Fisherman, kneeling before him (he’s not simply a servant, but also a priest) on a balance. Add the triregnum and too much! Plus, kneeling before such a one is the very contradiction that I’m talking about, the one the authority of the Church is built upon, that our faith itself is built upon. “Except you become as little children,” “the first shall be last and the last shall be first,” “have this attitude which was also in Christ Jesus Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Another simple example again - the popemobile. Generally servants are not shoffured around. The pope is. Does this “take away” from his being the servant of the servants of God? Does it take away from his Christlike humility? Not at all. Those are utilitarian tools, not symbols, DD. We have to protect him from nut jobs and we have to see him (heck, I think John Paul I giving in to riding the sedia did have some practical aspects)
Therefore, the tiara and the papal coronation don’t in and of themselves take anything away from the pope being the servant of the servants of God. Sorry, it still does, because…
It’s all about perceptions my friend. WE AGREE!
Certainly - but in the meantime we are commanded to honor our father and mother, of which the pope falls into this category. And also we are commanded to, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of doublehonor”. **Sure, but does that mean a crown, with all that it MAY symbolize? I tend not to think so. **
Now if one wants to say the tiara just seemed to go a bit too far and has lost it’s significance in this world and age where monarchies generally despised - well, ok. I’m cool with that. **I don’t generally despise monarchies or crowns. I think there’s something to them, as a matter of fact, if only as symbols (I don’t trust democracies much, they tend to self-destruct). But the difference between monarchies and the office of the papacy…well, let’s say that the papacy without the crown, but with the Crucified Christ on the pastoral staff in the hand of a transparently holy man, even one shaking with a palsy, beats all the crowned heads in the world all hollow in terms of authority. THAT I’d gladly kneel before! Let me try and put it another way: no crown could do the office JUSTICE.
**But to say the older tradition was intrinsically prideful and arrogant and contrary to the office of the pope…I’m going to have to strongly disagree. **No, no, no. I fault no pope for having worn it in the past, at all, nor do I say that it is intrinsically prideful. I think I said that it was taken up for a specific reason and it was a necessary symbol, just as I maintain the act of repudiating it was a necessary symbol when it was done. **
- it is easier to commission a picture of a holy man, than to live as one.You argument is that the tiara is unChristlike, lacks humility, and is prideful - then when the defense is made that that argument doesn’t hold water because it can’t be said of the previous popes who wore the tiara, then to counter that argument you recommend I read a book entitled “Bad Popes”.
Pleae elaborate on this thought. I want to understand what it is you are afraid of with the tiara - thinking that it might “cause scandal” is pretty darn close to “worrying what other people think” is it not?
Nope. But I’m familiar with the argument and it is pretty strong. See below when break out the “cynical” hat for ya.
As do I. Doesn’t mean I love the prudential decision though.
The description of the Holy Father’s coat of arms does not describe in any way, shape or form your denigrating opinion of the tiara - that it demonstrates human pride and lack of Christlike humility. In fact the article describes in pretty good detail the valid symbolism contained therein.
Uh, that’s from Pope Pius XII - he wore the tiara dear. As did the pope after him. Obviously the tiara didn’t affect his thinking or his humility.
Well, if I was truly naive, I’d say that Pope Paul VI just got a sudden case of humility and decsiveness out of the blue and finally did what so many “bad” popes didn’t have the courage or humility or wisdom to do.
Cool. That’s where I’m coming from.
I am fully aware of that. But it is simply irrelevant to this discussion. A few of them weren’t worthy of the tiara or the office itself. The Lord writes straight with crooked lines sometimes. That’s all.
Thats not the intent of my argument. Can you show me where this has been my argument? Is it because I advocate humility?
What have I to fear but pride? I just consult the teaching of Christ on the matter. Scripture teaches us when not to scandalize our brother. Seek out what that means.
To Christ the argument would be weak as He gave up everything for even His enemies.
Ah, but if it pleases the Pontiff to remove it shouldn’t it you? How many of Christ’s providential decisions do you fail to love? We all at times struggle with Christ’s example but He is never wrong. Neither is the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit.
Sure valid symbolism. Not valid humility. As is its removal and I see the rest of this statement as a worldy break down of dialogue. Speaking of cynical hats…
It hasn’t lost its worldly meaning for you though has it? You think there is nothing derogatory about it loosing its temporal meaning and being donated to charity? There is good reason it has lost its temporal meaninig and its for those wise reasons it won’t come back.
I have never said the tiara effected the Popes humility. It is noteworthy though that the Pontiffs have refused it. Thats a symbol your missing the meaning of my friend. Since you continue to put words in my mouth I am done pandering to this discord.
Oh, so you were the one in charge of implementing the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I always wondered who that was!The Sistine chapel ceiling is at least as intent on the human form as on the Last Judgement. I think it should be whitewashed. Give Vatican 2 time - saints cannot be forced; God brings forth saints in His good time, not ours. The Cistercians (I think it was they) had very plain churches - I don’t think it harmed them one bit. St. John Chrysostom did not think much of the worship that could beautify an altar while leaving the poor to starve.
What use is beauty if it distracts from Christ ? None - it becomes a snare, & a deceit. True beauty is to be found in a holy & Christlike life, not in perishable things like painting; especially if they are tainted by worldliness. The beauty of the Church is in the holiness of her Lord & Savoiour - not in paintings, which need protection, conservation, & restoration. Christ needs none of these - it is He Who protects us. It is striking that the Popes who employed Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael & the rest included some of the least edifying of Popes
So all the flummery of tiaras & similar trappings could easily be lost, with no harm to what really matters - Christ was not crucified that Popes, priests or ourselves might live in splendour, but that He might obey the Will of His Father by ransoming us from death. St. Peter needed no tiara, mozzetta, cappa magna, rochet, stole, surplice, chasuble, alb, infulae, & the rest of it - nor did the Church, then or long after. Beauty can all too easily be a substitute for faith - a way of concealing the nakedness of the Church, instead of signifying the beauty of a living faith.
So if St. Peter’s were nuked tomorrow, that would harm the faith not at all. We are in any case meant to be “detached from things of earth” - not to amass them. Yet the Church has done that constantly - which is asking for trouble. It is the rich whom Christ warns - not the poor. That includes us in the West - we are not exempt from the Righteous Will of God. Far from it. So why should the Church be exempt ? …
Gottle wins, hands down.
Really.
I say no. Looks like something out of the middle ages. Leaders today don’t use clothing and adornment to impress people of their power and dignity. Bush, Putin, and other leaders wear dark suits and look like a multitude of other people. Even the British royals (what a crowd! The world’s richest welfare family!) only wear their robes and crowns on state occasions.
The fact that they “look like everybody else” is half the problem.
