Do Catholics Kiss the Pope's ring?

  • Thread starter Thread starter firstmode
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

firstmode

Guest
I am sorry, saw this in a thread, what is this about? Is this a requirement? Is this true?

Could you please provide church father references to this act?

Thanks guys!
 
I am sorry, saw this in a thread, what is this about? Is this a requirement? Is this true?

Could you please provide church father references to this act?

Thanks guys!
May I suggest the Apologetic Section for a better understanding why Catholics do what they do. It would make sense they would know better than Non-Catholic wouldnt you say? 🤷 Let me state the obvious, whether a Catholic kisses the Popes ring or not does not in any way mean he worships his ring or the Pope. We worship only ONE. He is risen.

Peace and blessings
 
In polite society, a lady’s hand is kissed. Are you worshipping the lady or her hand?

When kissing the pope’s ring–or the ring of any bishop, for that matter–it’s because we honor the OFFICE, and not the man personally.

FWIW, in the Eastern Christian tradition, it’s customary to kiss the rings of a newly married couple in honor of the great sacrament they have received.
 
If my memory serves me correctly kissing the ring means…

I respect your office and I submit to your authority.

This tradition went back to the days when Kings first started wearing rings… The ring usually had a crest or national symbol on it…

Say you were French and went to England… You would kneel before the king and kiss his ring, stating you respected his office and while in his country you would submit to his authority…

Carry that to the Vatican… If you are already under the Pope’s authority *(say you are catholic),*when you kiss the Pope’s ring you are stating that while on planet earth you will respect his office and submit to his authority… If you are non-catholic, such as George W. Bush when he visited the Pope John Paul II (if he kissed his ring) Mr. Bush would be stating that he respect the office of Pope and while at the Vatican he would submit to the Pope’s authority.
 
In polite society, a lady’s hand is kissed. Are you worshipping the lady or her hand?

When kissing the pope’s ring–or the ring of any bishop, for that matter–it’s because we honor the OFFICE, and not the man personally.

FWIW, in the Eastern Christian tradition, it’s customary to kiss the rings of a newly married couple in honor of the great sacrament they have received.
Cluny you can say it’s respecting the office but the fact remains this practice did not start until the pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. If we look in scripture Peter who supposedly was the first pope never let anyone bow down to him.

Acts 10: 25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

If kissing a ring or bowing down to someone means submission to their authority then the example was never set by the Apostles that this is what we should be doing.
 
So it is not a Church Tradition, but a Tradition that the church took from the kingdoms of antiquity?
 
So it is not a Church Tradition, but a Tradition that the church took from the kingdoms of antiquity?
Yes. Consider it similar to using toilet paper, refraining from belching loudly after dinner, and shaking hands when you meet someone.

It is not theologically significant.
 
Yes. Consider it similar to using toilet paper, refraining from belching loudly after dinner, and shaking hands when you meet someone.

It is not theologically significant.
If it wasn’t significant theologically then why didn’t Peter just say thank you for the respect??
 
I am sorry, saw this in a thread, what is this about? Is this a requirement? Is this true?

Could you please provide church father references to this act?

Thanks guys!
Kissing somebody on the cheek or forehead is a sign of affection, for example between family members. In some formal settings, gentlemen are expected to kiss the hand of a lady when introduced. Kissing a ring on the hand of a bishop or royal is a sign of respect or devotion. There is a longstanding Roman Catholic tradition of kissing the Pope’s ring in this way.
 
It’s actually tradition to kiss any diocesan Bishop’s ring when greeting him in his diocese, not just the Pope.

It is also a tradition to kiss the hands of a Priest.
 
If it wasn’t significant theologically then why didn’t Peter just say thank you for the respect??
If Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc. etc. had lived from the 21st century, maybe they would have done just that - or been satisfied with a handshake. We can only speculate.

But you need to consider traditions such as these in their historical contexts and not impose 21st century sensibilities on the common practices of the faithful from 33 A.D. through the early and middle ages to the modern era.

The Popes, bishops and priests all held authority in the Church structure. Signet rings historically symbolized the authority of the offices held by the persons. Kissing the signet ring of a king, queen, prince, bishop or pope was a courtesy as common as a courtly bow or salute. The custom simply passed out of style in the secular realm over the centuries, but remained a part of church tradition. The action holds no theological importance. It is merely a polite form of acknowledging the position held by the particular person.

Peace,
-Robert
 
If Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc. etc. had lived from the 21st century, maybe they would have done just that - or been satisfied with a handshake. We can only speculate.

But you need to consider traditions such as these in their historical contexts and not impose 21st century sensibilities on the common practices of the faithful from 33 A.D. through the early and middle ages to the modern era.

The Popes, bishops and priests all held authority in the Church structure. Signet rings historically symbolized the authority of the offices held by the persons. Kissing the signet ring of a king, queen, prince, bishop or pope was a courtesy as common as a courtly bow or salute. The custom simply passed out of style in the secular realm over the centuries, but remained a part of church tradition. The action holds no theological importance. It is merely a polite form of acknowledging the position held by the particular person.

Peace,
-Robert
Robert I’m not imposing 21st century thought into this. I’m speaking strictly from a theological perspective. I understand fully what the practices and customs may have been at that time. But the fact remains these types of practices didn’t creep into the church until the Pope was officially given the same title the emperor of Rome used. In that regard it makes sense that folks may have done it.

What I’m saying is if we read scripture we never find anyone who was a leader in the church accept any type of salutation that involved bowing or kissing because that person was submitting to the others authority. This would include the Angels. They simply did not stand for it as the only person who deserves that type of greeting is Christ and GOD. We see Jesus HIMSELF accepting these gestures but not his disciples. I don’t have a problem with saying that accepted standards of greetings would be used in the church. We read of the Christian kiss all the time. We offer one another a sign of peace which mostly today is a handshake unless it’s family in which case I kiss my wife and daughter.

But I personally have a problem with kissing a man’s hand because it has a ring that represents some authority he was given by the Roman Emperor 1500 years ago. I don’t kiss the popes ring because I don’t submit to his personal authority. I submit to the authority of the church in which Christ alone is our leader.

PEACE
 
I submit to the authority of the church in which Christ alone is our leader.

PEACE
Then you’d have no trouble showing respect to his vicar. 😉

(I don’t know why Angels crept into the argument. They have no authority. They are messengers and heralds. We are higher than they.)
 
Then you’d have no trouble showing respect to his vicar. 😉

(I don’t know why Angels crept into the argument. They have no authority. They are messengers and heralds. We are higher than they.)
If Christ told us HE was sending a Vicar then you are absolutely right. But the only thing Christ told us HE was sending was a Helper which we know as the Holy Spirit. Sorry but the pope is not the vicar of Christ.

With regard to the Angels why didn’t he then bow down in submission to authority?
 
If Christ told us HE was sending a Vicar then you are absolutely right. But the only thing Christ told us HE was sending was a Helper which we know as the Holy Spirit. Sorry but the pope is not the vicar of Christ.
QUOTE]

Hmm…

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! **As the Father has sent me, I am sending **you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
 
One poster made the statement about “imposing 21 century” ideas and thoughts on our past.

As a Friend, we have a history of not taking off our hats in front of kings, magistrates or judges. We have a history of not bowing to judges nor use differing language to speak to others.

From this came the tradition among Friends to use “thee” and “thou” instead of “you” and “your”…“you” and “your” were the more “formal” terms of English used to address one’s…“betters” in 16th and 17th century England.

It became an oddity of Friends to speak with others using “thee”…that practice has been retained among some Friends within Quaker families or specifically in Meeting. It is a “religious” tradition for some Friends.

Today we stand when a judge enters the courtroom…in times past Friends would have gone to jail instead of giving “hat honor” to anyone.

Kissing a religious figures ring today to me is a similar practice…one of “tradition” and practice of a specific religious group…in this case particularly Catholics.

It should not be a “bone of contention” as it disrupts our fellowship with each other over something trivial.

The only “Quaker practice” I retain is that I “affirm” when serving on a jury instead of “swear an oath”. Rarely will I use “thee” when addressing other Friends…unless they of course address me in that manner…it is “odd” for me as a 21st century man to do so…but “when in Rome”🙂
 
Hmm…

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! **As the Father has sent me, I am sending **you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
So again how do you arrive at the current pope being the vicar of Christ 🤷 This statement made by Christ is part of the great commission which is given to all Apostles and is the responsibility of all Christians. But let’s break down the verse to see if we can get to a vicar of some sort. Jesus says just as the Father has “sent” me, the Greek there being apostello meaning to order one to go to a place appointed. Then Jesus says I am sending you, the Greek there being pempo which is a verb meaning literally to send someone or to bid something to be carried. So all we see is Jesus sending out the Apostles to pronounce forgiveness. Using this verse and your logic then anyone who succeeds the apostles would be a vicar of Christ.
Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
So here Jesus is addressing the 72 HE sent out. Are you saying all 72 of these people are vicars as well??
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Hmm let’s exegetically interpret this statement to be really clear what Christ was talking about. I’ll use another post I gave to someone here so I don’t have to re-type it.

Carefully consider the grammar of the Greek. The first noun petros is without the definite article “the” in the Greek while the second petra is with it. (You are petros and on “this” petra.) The first noun is masculine gender while the second is feminine. The first noun implies a smaller rock than the second noun. The first noun is modified by a second person pronoun while the next noun is modified by a third person demonstrative pronoun. The change from the second person singular to the third person makes no sense if Matthew intends the readers to understand the foundation rock to be Peter. The grammar simply does not show an identity being made of Peter as the Petra. It shows a contrast between he (peter) being a small rock and Christ being “The Rock”.

Read Chrysostom on the rock: “Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession." Also in the Collect from the Gregorian Sacramentary and in the Roman Missal on the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul are found these words, “Grant that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti) to be shaken by any commotions.

So again please show me from scripture where Jesus is sending anything other than the Holy Spirit to us. Excluding the fact that Jesus sent out HIS disciples which includes us all to spread the Gospel.
 
Cluny you can say it’s respecting the office but the fact remains this practice did not start until the pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. If we look in scripture Peter who supposedly was the first pope never let anyone bow down to him.

Acts 10: 25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

If kissing a ring or bowing down to someone means submission to their authority then the example was never set by the Apostles that this is what we should be doing.
That’s why Peter told him to get up, because the man was worshipping him. We do not worship the Pope. In America it’s the handshake, in the Near East it’s a kiss on each cheek, in Japan and many others it’s the bow.

You should listen to what Publisher says, a good man with common sense:

It should not be a “bone of contention” as it disrupts our fellowship with each other over something trivial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top