Episcopal insignia = liturgical vestments

[LilyM]

Caesar:

And of course, yes a comparison between Alexander VI and Paul VI- John Paul II cant really be made: Alexander VI really only damaged his own soul; Paul VI damaged the Church.

Really? You mean Alexander VI never sufficiently scandalised anyone by his terrible private life enough for them to leave the Church? Or to seriously doubt that the Popes had the authority they claimed (and claim) to have???

I would think his behaviour had a huge and direct impact on Luther and on those who followed him into schism and heresy.They after all had been alive during his Papacy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, it would have been heretical to say they had valid orders, since the teaching on Anglican Orders of Leo XIII is infallible.

Now as for what they DID do…you’re playing a typical game. Sure, they gave insignia. But they didn’t say why. They didn’t SAY they were acknowledging the Anglican laymen as bishops. They just gave bishops’ insignia.

If I give a girl a diamond engagement ring and don’t say “I’m asking you to marry me,” what’s she going to think? When she opens the box, will she really think, “Oh, he’s just giving me a diamond ring. It doesn’t mean anything until the words are explicitly uttered.”

Of course not. It’s not heresy to GIVE the insignia…but it is a scandal. Because reasonable people know what it signifies…acknowledgment of their episcopal ministry. It’s not a box of candy or a basket of fruit. It’s a gift WITH MEANING. Significance.

And therein lies the scandal.

Not playing a game at all. I’m honestly NOT scandalized. I don’t think anything ill was intended, so I’m giving the pope a walk on it. You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously. But if you attempt to persuade others that it was a grave scandal, I’m going to suggest that it wasn’t. Because it isn’t.

 

[AlexV]

I see. Your opinion equals fact, then.

My opinion is just an opinion.

Sorry. Episcopal insignia mean something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Giving episcopal insignia to someone else means something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Giving episcopal insignia to someone who publicly proclaims themselves to be the head bishop of a worldwide church means something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Since Anglicans don’t have valid orders, and it is heresy to believe otherwise, giving episcopal insignia to an Anglican “bishop” is scandalous.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see. Your opinion equals fact, then.

My opinion is just an opinion.

Sorry. Episcopal insignia mean something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Giving episcopal insignia to someone else means something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Giving episcopal insignia to someone who publicly proclaims themselves to be the head bishop of a worldwide church means something. If you wish to deny that, go ahead.

Since Anglicans don’t have valid orders, and it is heresy to believe otherwise, giving episcopal insignia to an Anglican “bishop” is scandalous.

It’s so funny that you don’t see the irony in the fact that I could have as easily used the first sentence in your post to refer to what YOU were doing (offering YOUR opinion as fact).

I’m not denying the importance of epsicopal insignia (well, those buskins ARE just downright silly looking, as are the gauntlets, but I digress). I’m just denying that what you alledge to be a scandal is, in fact, a scandal.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I am more Catholic than the Pope. The Pope is not the standard of Catholicity, but Christ.

Since I have never kissed the Koran, I am more Catholic than the Pope. And I’m quite certain that Archbishop Lefebvre the Great was more Catholic than the Pope.

Catholicism is defined by Christ and His doctrine contained in Scripture and Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, not by the cult of personality surrounding a Pope.

Pax tecum!

Well, I’m glad you’ve finally admitted it, Dr. Bombay. I find it kind of funny, though, that you slam others on here for calling JPII “the Great” and then apply that title to someone who disobeyed a direct order from the pope and started a schism (oh, but wait, it’s not REALLY a schism, though is it, because you know more about Canon Law than the pope, right?). How many times is the Koran incident going to be brought up?

Martin Luther thought he was more Catholic than the pope, too. The sedevacantists think they’re more Catholic than the pope, too. The SSPX (which, yes, I know, you love them) think they’re more Catholic than the pope, too.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

Well, I’m glad you’ve finally admitted it, Dr. Bombay. I find it kind of funny, though, that you slam others on here for calling JPII “the Great” and then apply that title to someone who disobeyed a direct order from the pope and started a schism (oh, but wait, it’s not REALLY a schism, though is it, because you know more about Canon Law than the pope, right?). How many times is the Koran incident going to be brought up?

Martin Luther thought he was more Catholic than the pope, too. The sedevacantists think they’re more Catholic than the pope, too. The SSPX (which, yes, I know, you love them) think they’re more Catholic than the pope, too.

In Christ,
Rand

Actually, I’m pretty sure that Martin Luther didn’t consider himself more Catholic than the Pope.

And why must you ignore my cogent arguments and instead go off on your tangent and derail a perfectly good thread? Is Catholicism defined by the Pope or by Christ and His Deposit of Faith? Is everything the Pope does or says beyond reproach or criticism? No, it is not. And to say otherwise is not very Catholic at all.

Archbishop Lefebvre the Great was more Catholic than the Pope. Deal with it.

The SSPX are not in schism nor has the Church declared them as such. The Truth hurts.

 

[bear06]

I am more Catholic than the Pope.

Kudos to you Bombay for this honest answer. Of course, I think you are wrong but at least you’ve said what you mean instead of beating around the bush.

That said, Alex, I’d love to know what the point of the thread is? It seems that if you feel that all of the things that you think the pope did were so scandalous that you might not want to continue spreading the scandal. Again, what is your goal.

 

[jbuck919]

Episcopal regalia (what you are calling insignia) are of course subject to modification. If someone as fundamentally conservative as Pope Paul VI said “I’m just not going to wear this ridiculous get-up anymore and neither should any bishop,” then there was something that needed addressing. In fact, in my opinion, he got it pretty much right. Bisops used to have to wear the vestiture of all the major orders: the tunicle, dalmatic, and chasuble all at once. This was ridiculous. . They have their proper signs of their order: the ring, the miter, and the crozier. They don’t need all that other ****.

I would look at it from the other point of view. Catholic clergy are privileged to be able to vest in other than street clothes on the one hand or simple protestant-type vestituture on the other. Of course, nowadays they vest fancily and then participate in an aesthetically otherwise completely unworthy liturgy, but let’s not go there. Vestments are nice. Vestments are something we should be proud of. The full chasuble as opposed to the fiddleback “apron” which made the alb look like underwear is a delight. Let’s be happy that given every other compromise, our priests are not presiding in t-shirts and jeans.

 

[LilyM]

Oh man, fiddlebacks, lacy albs and fancy gloves … no man could possibly look reasonably masculine in that get-up.

Give me a nice (NOT polyester) full chasuble any day…

 

[LilyM]

Oh man, fiddlebacks, lacy albs and fancy gloves … makes even the manliest male look prissier than any girl.

Give me a nice (NOT polyester) full chasuble any day…

 

[AJV]

I would look at it from the other point of view. Catholic clergy are privileged to be able to vest in other than street clothes on the one hand or simple protestant-type vestituture on the other. Of course, nowadays they vest fancily and then participate in an aesthetically otherwise completely unworthy liturgy, but let’s not go there. Vestments are nice. Vestments are something we should be proud of. The full chasuble as opposed to the fiddleback “apron” which made the alb look like underwear is a delight. Let’s be happy that given every other compromise, our priests are not presiding in t-shirts and jeans.

Oh man, fiddlebacks, lacy albs and fancy gloves … makes even the manliest male look prissier than any girl.

Give me a nice (NOT polyester) full chasuble any day…

Grrrrrrr. You’ll watch your backs.



But what exactly does this have to do with the subject of the OP?

And BTW, I think the buskins are the stockings. There is a name for the slippers but it has slipped my mind. IIRC, there is no symbolism attached to them in ther Pontifical- the bishop puts them on while donning the alb amice and stole and reciting the psalms in preparation beginning with Ps. 84.There is a prayer though for “the shoes of the gospel of peace” occuring in the missal at the vesting for a Pontifical High Mass.

 

[AlexV]

I love it.

One poster calls “ridiculous” and, profanely, “all that other ****” the quite old tradition by which the bishop, since he possesses the fullness of Holy Orders, wears the proper vestments of all the orders…tunic, dalmatic, etc.

Some bishops today wear just those vestments…Bishop Rifan of Campos, for one, properly wears the full 1962-era pontificals.

I guess his vesture is “ridiculous”, eh?

I guess Tridentine vesture can be called “ridiculous”, but insulting the Novus Ordo or anything “John Paul the Great” does is a symptom of nascent schism?

Hypocrisy…

 

[AJV]

I love it.

One poster calls “ridiculous” and, profanely, “all that other ****” the quite old tradition by which the bishop, since he possesses the fullness of Holy Orders, wears the proper vestments of all the orders…tunic, dalmatic, etc.

Some bishops today wear just those vestments…Bishop Rifan of Campos, for one, properly wears the full 1962-era pontificals.

I guess his vesture is “ridiculous”, eh?

I guess Tridentine vesture can be called “ridiculous”, but insulting the Novus Ordo or anything “John Paul the Great” does is a symptom of nascent schism?

Hypocrisy…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The late Pope John Paul II.

May I also point out that bishops today may also wear the pontifical dalmatic. My own does at yearly Confirmations.

Remeber though that it is not always the case that the wearer of Pontificals posseses the fullness of Holy Orders. For example, Protonotaries apostolic had the right to wear pontificals- dalmatic, tunicle, buskins, pectoral cross and all when celebrating Mass. By the abbatial privelege abbots could also do so.

 

[jbuck919]

I love it.

One poster calls “ridiculous” and, profanely, “all that other ****” the quite old tradition by which the bishop, since he possesses the fullness of Holy Orders, wears the proper vestments of all the orders…tunic, dalmatic, etc.

Some bishops today wear just those vestments…Bishop Rifan of Campos, for one, properly wears the full 1962-era pontificals.

I guess his vesture is “ridiculous”, eh?

I guess Tridentine vesture can be called “ridiculous”, but insulting the Novus Ordo or anything “John Paul the Great” does is a symptom of nascent schism?

Hypocrisy…

Bishop Rifan in Campos, eh? I happen to know that this a location in Brazil, and no one who does not happen to live there could have the slightest care. There are more and less important places inthe world, and all of South America is of no importance, nor ever has been. I doubt that anybody is going to give a and and will not risk another mild commonality. (The same could be said by the way for Africa.)

 

[AlexV]

Thanks for making my work easier by continuing to show your true colors.

South America is of no importance, eh? I see.

Africa too? I see.

As for Campos…considering Bishop Rifan is allowed to inscribe traditionalist Catholics worldwide into his Personal Apostolic Administration, I’d say he is of interest to plenty…he recently finished another of his Confirmation tours, administering the Sacrament in NORTH America.

Maybe that continent isn’t important either.

What arrogance.

 

[jbuck919]

No, I wasn’t kidding. Two huge continents, completely unimportant in the world because of their own backwardness and stupidity dating back centuries at this point. Completely unimportant on the world scene. They might as well not be on the globe. Not a fun fact to face, but a fact. Why do you think that they elected a prominent German as the current pope? Do you actually think they would have elected one of the Africans or South Americans? And the next one wiill be the current Archbishop of Vienna, Schoenborn. I’ll take bets on it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thanks for making my work easier by continuing to show your true colors.

South America is of no importance, eh? I see.

Africa too? I see.

As for Campos…considering Bishop Rifan is allowed to inscribe traditionalist Catholics worldwide into his Personal Apostolic Administration, I’d say he is of interest to plenty…he recently finished another of his Confirmation tours, administering the Sacrament in NORTH America.

Maybe that continent isn’t important either.

What arrogance.

JBuck didn’t make your work any easier. You’re still spouting subjecive opinion as though it were Gospel fact. It isn’t.

 

[AlexV]

All I see is arrogance and smugness.

“Backwardness”…“stupidity”…talk about racism. Talk about views that have no business in Catholic dialogue. “They might as well not be on the globe.” Fascinating. What arrogance. What smugness.

As for “subjective opinion”…let’s see…calling entire continents “stupid”? That qualifies as subjective opinion, I’d say.

JBuck’s views are unCatholic, racist, and offensive.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The SSPX are not in schism nor has the Church declared them as such. The Truth hurts.

Pax tecum!

I’ve already addressed this lie of yours in another thread. Grow up, Dr. Bombay. Honestly, for a grown man your posts are by far the most immature on these forums.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Dr.Bombay]

It seems when you strip away all the talk about “springtime” and “renewal” and such like, it all boils down to bigotry. Simple, ugly, ignorant bigotry.

The elitists on this forum and throughout the Church have their agenda, it seems:

“We don’t want **those people **in charge.”

“We don’t want those people to have their Mass.”

“Those people need to just shut up and obey we who are much wiser than they.”

Not a fun fact to face, but a fact. Maybe someone will link a papal encyclical that countenances bigotry.