Crown the Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jnewaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jnewaz

Guest
An open question:

What would be the pros and the cons of a papal coronation?

Two possible views:

Pro: A resurgence of tradition, a visible symbol of the Papal Primacy. A sign to the world that Catholic’s have a rich heritage of tradition that rivals the greatest monarchies and kingdoms of the world. A sign that the Pope is truly a leader among men, whose teachings while centered on faith and morals, does and should extend into our daily and secular lives. A visible sign of his role as the Vicar of Christ, holding a throne (keeping it warm so to speak) for the eventual coming of Christ, who shall reign as the eternal high priest.

Con: A symbol of temporal power, which once corrupted the papacy in terrible ways. A step back towards an almost heretical period of blind papism and ultramontanist viewpoints. An unnecessary vanity, an unneeded sign of roman pomp and glory unfit in a world facing economic recession, poverty, and hunger. A crown that may devalue the pope’s role as a shepherd, and falsely create the image of a King. A banner around which the enemies of the church can muster, calling the Pope an outdated position, an autocratic dictator that rules one billion catholics with a single-minded view.

What’s your take?
 
jnewaz said:
An open question:

What would be the pros and the cons of a papal coronation?

Two possible views:

Pro: A resurgence of tradition, a visible symbol of the Papal Primacy. A sign to the world that Catholic’s have a rich heritage of tradition that rivals the greatest monarchies and kingdoms of the world. A sign that the Pope is truly a leader among men, whose teachings while centered on faith and morals, does and should extend into our daily and secular lives. A visible sign of his role as the Vicar of Christ, holding a throne (keeping it warm so to speak) for the eventual coming of Christ, who shall reign as the eternal high priest.
Click to expand...
Wow! Especially the part in bold. You’ve convinced ME!
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Or numerous others. That search feature must have dust on it an inch thick.
Click to expand...
JKirk!

I remember quarreling with you years ago when I was 16. I wish I could find some of those posts.

Long lost account… Missa Solemnis or something.

We used to argue all the time about tradition and modernity. To refresh your memory, it was before CA had a Traditional Catholic subforum. I think it was that initial wave of threads which caused the subforum.

Me and my friends, Scott, Nick, and other Brits. All seminarians now probably (I have since fallen out of touch).

Im glad to see that years later my posts still provoke you!

I’m ultimately joking, its a blessing to see you’re still out there spreading the word on these forums.

God Bless you, honestly.
 
jnewaz said:
JKirk!

I remember quarreling with you years ago when I was 16. I wish I could find some of those posts.

Long lost account… Missa Solemnis or something.

We used to argue all the time about tradition and modernity.

Me and my friends, Scott, Nick, and other Brits. All seminarians now probably (I have since fallen out of touch).

Im glad to see that years later my posts still provoke you!

I’m ultimately joking, its a blessing to see your still out there spreading the word on these forums.

God Bless you, honestly.
Click to expand...
Ah, how are you? Yes, I’m still as cranky as Saint Jerome. I hope as I draw nearer to the grave, I mellow…but thus far, it hasn’t looked that way.

And you, too, may the Holy One hold you close in His Most Sacred Heart…honestly!
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Ah, how are you? Yes, I’m still as cranky as Saint Jerome. I hope as I draw nearer to the grave, I mellow…but thus far, it hasn’t looked that way.

And you, too, may the Holy One hold you close in His Most Sacred Heart…honestly!
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
jnewaz said:
An open question:

What would be the pros and the cons of a papal coronation?

Two possible views:

Pro: A resurgence of tradition, a visible symbol of the Papal Primacy. A sign to the world that Catholic’s have a rich heritage of tradition that rivals the greatest monarchies and kingdoms of the world. A sign that the Pope is truly a leader among men, whose teachings while centered on faith and morals, does and should extend into our daily and secular lives. A visible sign of his role as the Vicar of Christ, holding a throne (keeping it warm so to speak) for the eventual coming of Christ, who shall reign as the eternal high priest.

Con: A symbol of temporal power, which once corrupted the papacy in terrible ways. A step back towards an almost heretical period of blind papism and ultramontanist viewpoints. An unnecessary vanity, an unneeded sign of roman pomp and glory unfit in a world facing economic recession, poverty, and hunger. A crown that may devalue the pope’s role as a shepherd, and falsely create the image of a King. A banner around which the enemies of the church can muster, calling the Pope an outdated position, an autocratic dictator that rules one billion catholics with a single-minded view.

What’s your take?
Click to expand...
It partially depends on what the Papal crown actually means. If the crown were a mere symbol of temporal authority, it would rather vain to wear it. The once vast Papal States the Holy Father ruled over have been vanquished, replaced by a few acres tucked within medieval walls. Dusting off and wearing the crown of a nation that no longer exists is perhaps a little over the top.

If, however, the papal crown were a symbol of the Pope’s spiritual authority, then it would be appropriate to resurrect it. However, the scandal that could be caused, hinted at in “con”, might be enough to discourage actually wearing said crown, so I’d say its just best to leave it on display in the Vatican museums for now.
 
runningdude said:
It partially depends on what the Papal crown actually means. If the crown were a mere symbol of temporal authority, it would rather vain to wear it. The once vast Papal States the Holy Father ruled over have been vanquished, replaced by a few acres tucked within medieval walls. Dusting off and wearing the crown of a nation that no longer exists is perhaps a little over the top.

If, however, the papal crown were a symbol of the Pope’s spiritual authority, then it would be appropriate to resurrect it. However, the scandal that could be caused, hinted at in “con”, might be enough to discourage actually wearing said crown, so I’d say its just best to leave it on display in the Vatican museums for now.
Click to expand...
But the nation does exist. A rump state is still a state.
 
To me, papal primacy is best established through tradition, teaching, character, words, and actions, not golden trinkets.
 
DJ_Pius_X said:
But the nation does exist. A rump state is still a state.
Click to expand...
Its technically a new state. It was created in 1929 by treaty between the Pope and the united Italian government about 50 years after Rome was conquered. The Holy See itself remained a sovereign entity for the duration, but the Papal States were acknowledged to have been disbanded in the late 1870’s.

Italy actually continues to maintain slightly separate legal relationships with both the ancient Holy See and the more recently created Vatican State. Its pretty confusing!
 
jnewaz said:
An open question:

What would be the pros and the cons of a papal coronation?

Two possible views:

Pro: A resurgence of tradition, a visible symbol of the Papal Primacy. A sign to the world that Catholic’s have a rich heritage of tradition that rivals the greatest monarchies and kingdoms of the world. A sign that the Pope is truly a leader among men, whose teachings while centered on faith and morals, does and should extend into our daily and secular lives. A visible sign of his role as the Vicar of Christ, holding a throne (keeping it warm so to speak) for the eventual coming of Christ, who shall reign as the eternal high priest.

Con: A symbol of temporal power, which once corrupted the papacy in terrible ways. A step back towards an almost heretical period of blind papism and ultramontanist viewpoints. An unnecessary vanity, an unneeded sign of roman pomp and glory unfit in a world facing economic recession, poverty, and hunger. A crown that may devalue the pope’s role as a shepherd, and falsely create the image of a King. A banner around which the enemies of the church can muster, calling the Pope an outdated position, an autocratic dictator that rules one billion catholics with a single-minded view.

What’s your take?
Click to expand...
A bishop wears his mitre, episcopal ring (amongst other vestments and variations of vestments), and uses a crosier as the symbol of his authority. The Pope is a bishop, and above that he has authority over all other bishops and patriarchs in the entire world, he is the head of Christ’s Church, is it not fitting that he also have distinctive vestments to demonstrate Peter’s authority? Ultimately vestments don’t bring honour to the ones wearing them, but to He that gave them authority to wear them; in the same way that the finest Cathedrals, churches and basilicas have been meant to glorify God and His Church, are vestments used in his worship. To those who claim it is a symbol of wealth, corruption and decadence in an age of poverty and starving masses, I’d just like to point out that along with all of the extravagant pomp and ceremony of the Church, She also numbers among the greatest charitable organizations in the world. I remember from the Gospel, when Mary Magdalene was washing Christ’s feet with an expensive jar of ointment, did Christ rebuke her and tell her to sell it and give money to the poor (like a certain Judas suggested)? Or did He commend her for it? It is only appropriate that the things of the Church, vestments included be as fine as possible.

And yes it is also a symbol of the pope’s secular authority, the Holy See is it’s own sovereign nation. Along with supreme authority in the Church, the pope is also the head of state of the Papal States. The idea that the Holy See should have no secular authority or influence was condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. Even still, there are plenty of countries across the globe in which the head of state has a crown. To think of a few Canada (we are the BEST Commonwealth realm… just sayin :D) and the other Commonwealth realms, Spain, Belgium, Japan etc… how many people object to this? How many people admire and enjoy the pomp and ceremony of the tradition? Compare the two and I’m sure you’ll find the latter are in the vast majority. So by all means crown Peter! 👍
 
This topic has been discussed and Rome has spoken. Please use the search function to find the previous discussion under “papal tiara”.

CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top