Papal Tiara usage?

[MiserereMei25]

Why do people continue to make Papal Tiaras for the popes if they are not going to be used? And was it really a turn off to people when it was used in the past that they have decided to no longer use it? Why does the Vatican coat of arms have it on there?

 

[giuseppe96]

Good question. Paul VI was the last pope to be ‘crowned’. I think it may have been an attempt to make the church appear less materialistic, which wasn’t the problem in the first place.

 

[po18guy]

The Vicar of Christ. It is an honor, honoring what our Lord did. Although many may see it as ostentatious, in some manner it does represent the King of kings.

Trace the tradition back and you will find that kings were much more common and much more admired and respected in those days.

 

[Aulef]

I truly hope the next ones get crowned and wear it. It is a powerful symbol which we Catholics must always remember: everyone, including governments, shall bow to the Church’s authority, which comes not from men, but from God Himself.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This is one of those traditions I’m not in a hurry to revive.

In an age when Kings and Queens often appeared in full regalia and were frequently given full honors in public, it made a lot of sense. Now? In 2018? When there are very few monarchies still around and many of those have largely toned down the pomp and circumstance? It would be almost universally misunderstood.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Let’s see, how many popes wore a papal tiara? 150 or so? But now it’s considered, what, too ostentatious? Too ornate?

So, instead we think that the Church is supposed to conform itself to the world, I guess. Yes, I guess the world respects the Church a lot now, doesn’t it?

What’s next, a bishop’s mitre? Because that must look weird to secular people, I would think.

 

[Dovekin]

When Paul Vi was crowned, it was with a tiara bought by the people of Milan, the diocese he had led before becoming Pope. During Vatican II, after hearing of the poverty in S America and Africa, he gave the tiara to feed the poor.

When John Paul I was elected, he was not crowned, but simply installed as bishop of Rome. He still used the tiara in his coat of arms.

John Paul II continued that practice, though there are a few instances of a coat of arms with a mitre instead of a tiara.
Benedict XVI’s coat of arms has a mitre and the pallium, signs of episcopal office and never had a tiara.
Francis followed Benedict’s lead.

The Holy See still uses the tiara on its flag, presumably because there is still a temporal component to its existence. While the Popes emphasize their spiritual authority by using a mitre, there is still a temporal jurisdiction symbolized by the tiara.

To be clear though, the tiara was to conform the papacy to the ways of the world, not the mitre. As crowns and kings became less significant in world politics, this particular adaptation to secular values has become less desirable.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So, instead we think that the Church is supposed to conform itself to the world, I guess.

The tiara was adopted to conform to the world…

Once popes had control of territory they took on the temporal markers of authority like the crown.

 

[otjm]

You can probably get a fairly accurate count of how many Popes wore the tiara by looking at how many Popes were not just rulers of the Church, but also rulers in the secular world. The beginning of the end of wearing the tiara could likely be traced to the final loss of the Papal States. The church does not move fast in most things, and it took several Popes after the loss of the States before one, Pope John Paul 1 decided to not go that route.

I have no problem with no longer “crowning” the Pope. My recollection was that St. Peter didn’t rule over any land, nor did a number of Popes after him.

There is an old phrase: “Nature abhors a vacuum”, and as the Roman empire started to unwind, the Church stepped in to try to provide some stability. I do not make my comments as any denigration of the history of the Church as a secular force, with the Pope as the head of that secular realm, but I don’t think it is a stretch of the imagination that ruling over political entities was or is what the Church is about.

I rather turn to John Paul 2’s statement of being the “servant of the servants of God” as at least indirectly saying that we as a Church have moved beyond being a secular ruler with the trappings of kings, princes, and the rest of the political world.

Speaking of some of the hierarchy as “princes of the Church” is not particularly evocative of the image of a shepherd.

 

[Genesis315]

I rather turn to John Paul 2’s statement of being the “servant of the servants of God” as at least indirectly saying that we as a Church have moved beyond being a secular ruler with the trappings of kings, princes, and the rest of the political world.

To be fair, the title and job description “servant of the servants of God” began with St. Gregory the Great and was used by every single Pope that used the tiara. The title is not contrary to the meaning of the tiara (in fact, they both have the same meaning). As the Lord said, the greatest among you shall be the servant–the tiara signified this very office.

 

[otjm]

Then it would appear we have a different meaning to the tiara.

 

[midori]

I think there have been three papal tiaras made as gifts in the last 50 years? It’s hardly a chronic problem.

There was the 1981 John Paul II tiara, which was made for him by the people of Hungary. Yay, thanks for your help in overthrowing communism. I bet if you asked a hundred thousand people, you wouldn’t find one who can get you a tour to go see it and snap a selfie with it.

There was the 2011 Benedict XVI tiara, which was made by Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Christians, and gifted by German Catholics. Yay, our fellow countryman.


And then there was the 2016 Francis tiara, which was made by nuns in Macedonia.

So, I think it’s more about a thoughtful gesture of respect towards the office than it is about giving someone a practical gift to the individual who possesses the office, because none of them actually get used-- and the gifters don’t expect them to be used.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I’m trying to think if there is another unique visual symbol of the papacy? It’s kind of too bad it is completely abandoned. Why not wear it, say, for the Feast of the Chair of Peter (at Antioch)? If people continue to make them as gifts for the pope, it’s obviously still meaningful to some people. It’s not like the nuns who made one for Pope Francis robbed the poor for the raw material.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Why do people continue to make Papal Tiaras for the popes if they are not going to be used?

It is a traditional symbol of authority. For many, the Tiara represents the authority which the Pope once held among the rulers of the world. While he was set among their number as ruler of the Papal States, he was also set above them as the ‘Kingmaker’ in the truest sense of the word: generally if the Pope gave you a ‘no’ to being king, your reign was usually a very rocky one. Those people who generally make tiaras for the Pope do so as a symbol that the Pope still holds that place in their hearts. He holds both a spiritual and temporal precedence in their lives. Originally, the Tiara evolved from the war helmet bishops used to wear into battle. Three crowns were added to it to denote his rule over the Papal States, his role in crowning the Holy Roman Emperor, and his spiritual authority. It was a visible sign which helped the attacking army know who to stay away from in battle, lest they incur excommunication.

And was it really a turn off to people when it was used in the past that they have decided to no longer use it?

To some, it was. Even when the Papal States were conquered by the forces Victor Emmanuelle II to create the Kingdom of Italy in the Rissorgimento of the nineteenth century, the Papal Tiara was a sign of resistance, saying that they still claimed sovereignty over the lands of the Papal States. The title ‘Prisoner of the Vatican’ was used until Pope Pius XII signed the Lateran Treaty to create the Vatican City. Some saw this as the first step to reclaiming the Papal States. When it did not happen after World War II and then the Tiara was discontinued, some saw it as the Papacy giving up on it’s claim and its position as a true temporal power. Ironically, now the Papacy is more powerful without the Papal States than Pius IX (the last ruler of the Papal States) ever was.

Why does the Vatican coat of arms have it on there?

The coat of arms of Vatican City does because the Tiara is a symbol of temporal power and the Vatican City is, itself a temporal power

The Papal coat of arms no longer does. Pope Benedict XVI removed the Tiara and replaced it with a silver miter with the three divisions of the tiara in gold. It no longer depicts a temporal battle helmet but a purely spiritual sign of Papal authority.

 

[Hereiam]

So, instead we think that the Church is supposed to conform itself to the world, I guess. Yes, I guess the world respects the Church a lot now, doesn’t it?

Should we burn heretics at the stake, too?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

So, instead we think that the Church is supposed to conform itself to the world, I guess. Yes, I guess the world respects the Church a lot now, doesn’t it?

Should we burn heretics at the stake, too?

Wow - - nice analogy! Yes, wearing the papal tiara and “burning heretics at the stake” are equivalent!

 

[Hereiam]

Wow - - nice analogy! Yes, wearing the papal tiara and “burning heretics at the stake” are equivalent!

My apologies…words matter…hard to follow what you meant…perhaps you can clarify your original post?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Ah. Perhaps I misunderstood your words. I’m trying to figure out why you brought up “burning heretics at the stake” while we were discussing the use / disuse of the papal tiara?

 

[Hereiam]

At one point in history, burning of heretics at the stake would have been conforming to the world…maybe I just misunderstood your statement…if so, I apologize…in my mind Papal coronation is conforming to the world, and so, burning of heretics would be the same.

In my mind, coronation is quaint, but is also anachronistic.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

At one point in history, burning of heretics at the stake would have been conforming to the world…maybe I just misunderstood your statement…if so, I apologize…in my mind Papal coronation is conforming to the world, and so, burning of heretics would be the same.

In my mind, coronation is quaint, but is also anachronistic.

Ah. My point was that when Pope Paul VI gave up the tiara in 1964, was the Catholic Church respected to a greater degree than it is now? I believe it was. Not sure what effect giving up the papal tiara has helped long-term, but I suppose it was a splashy news story in 1964.

It seems to me an ultimate example of giving up one of our Church traditions, followed for 1200 years or so, given up literally to impress the world. Why does the secular world even care? It’s none of their business! Does the secular world care about the headwear of Muslim leaders? The Dalai Lama? Russian Orthodox?