B
BillyT926
Guest
Like it or not, this is the way it is.
- Status
M
mburn16
Guest
Only because we allow our enemies to dictate to us.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
That is irrelevant to this thread.Of course during Mass. What do you suggest he wore **under **the altar vestments?
Says who?
M
malphono
Guest
It’s possible. For example, S Peter Celestine (Celestine V) was a monk. S Pius V was a Dominican Friar.
He is a bishop, first and foremost. Any and all other titles derive from that one.
Look, for example, at Quo Primum: the header reads: Pius Episcopus
Servus Servorum Dei
It really doesn’t matter what the laity, or the clergy, or the media think. It’s a decision to made by the Bishop of Rome. Both John-Paul II and Benedict XVI had triregnums, though they chose not to use them.
M
malphono
Guest
Uh … I didn’t bring it up.
B
BillyT926
Guest
What Cardinal would bring it back? Burke? I don’t know if even he would.
The Tiara is what it is. It’s legitimate. It’s has theological significance. It’s often beautiful. And sure, symbols are important. But it’s a difficult argument to say its necessary.
Not everything pre 1962 is necessarily better. It comes off as fetishizing the past to say everything i
I think luxe is great LITURGICALLY. I don’t see it as necessarily better outside of that. Everyone knows what the papacy is.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. Regardless, one couldn’t tell at this moment.
I don’t find it so difficult. The aforementioned reasons are perfectly sound and clear.
But we aren’t talking about everything, we’re talking about the Tiara. And I don’t know why you bring up 1962. Why does that matter?
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m a bit confused by your vision, being as you are from the Archdiocese of Boston where one of our brothers is the Cardinal Archbishop who wears sandals and a habit for mass every day, even under his vestments. In fact, you will always see his cowl draped over his chasuble and the pallium surrounding the cowl.
As to popes in sandals and habits, Pope Nicholas IV was a Friar Minor Observant (Franciscan) who wore only sandals and habit. Pope Clement IV was a Friar Minor Conventual (Franciscan) who also wore only sandals and a habit. Pope Pius V was a Friar Preacher (Dominican) who wore a habit and boots (the traditional dress of the Dominican Friars). It was Pope Pius V who inspired the white cassock worn by secular popes. Because they were not consecrated religious, these popes did not have a habit. So they adopted the Dominicans’ habit. Hence the off-white color and the shoulder cape and the red mantle that replaced the black Dominican mantle worn by Pius V.
If Cardinal Sean were to be elected pope, do you seriously imagine him dressing any differently than he does now?
Think again, as you say that you are aspiring to become a priest. If it’s for the Archdiocese of Boston, you’ll have to get used to a prelate in sandals and habit at mass.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...t-pVDCG0jzADB71fz512Yw-6nmozp3w53gdzthG2stV0w
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...aBPW-bNXUIohVnBuqPObjURTiWBZQz-BYcixA6EWbbxHe
Observe the cowl over the vestments, without an amice. Most Franciscans do not wear an amice. If the alb does not have a cowl, the mendicant’s cowl is worn over the vestments.
By the way, it’s not a monastic habit. The monastic habit is very different from that of a mendicant’s habit.
G
GloriaMaria
Guest
I read an interview with one of the Cardinal electors today. It struck me that when he was asked questions about whether he thought the new Pope should be young or old, from which nationality etc…, he answered that he thought that more than anything the Church needed someone who reflected Christ, a very holy person.
Holiness and simplicity are not always brothers, but very often they are. I can see very clearly that if it weren’t required for ceremony, if it were the choice of the Holy Father, that as has been done in the recent past, he would surrender the unnecessary adornments.
Personally, I would take notice of a papal tiara.
But I would be floored by the humility of sandals and habit, for such a great office. This is a world steeped in materialism. Many people would look up.
Holiness and simplicity are not always brothers, but very often they are. I can see very clearly that if it weren’t required for ceremony, if it were the choice of the Holy Father, that as has been done in the recent past, he would surrender the unnecessary adornments.
Personally, I would take notice of a papal tiara.
But I would be floored by the humility of sandals and habit, for such a great office. This is a world steeped in materialism. Many people would look up.
M
mburn16
Guest
“Everyone knows what the papacy is.”
I don’t know if they do or not, to be honest. It seems to me that even among many Catholics, there is a lack of regard for Rome. I’m not saying this is something the Tiara would cure…but I think there is a good argument that can be made that the church hierarchy has not not fully asserted its authority, leaving many to feel that they can go their own way.
I don’t know if they do or not, to be honest. It seems to me that even among many Catholics, there is a lack of regard for Rome. I’m not saying this is something the Tiara would cure…but I think there is a good argument that can be made that the church hierarchy has not not fully asserted its authority, leaving many to feel that they can go their own way.
J
JReducation
Guest
Have you stopped to consider that today about 1/3 of the hierarchy is religious? Pope John Paul and Benedict deliberately increased the number of regular bishops and cardinals. Why do you think this is so?
My personal opinion . . . both popes are looking for successors that bring simplicity, fraternity, collegiality, fidelity, poverty, and asceticism to the episcopacy, maybe to the Chair of Peter.
This can also be seen from another angle. For a regular cardinal, the whole idea of the pomp and circumstance is a penance. This is not part of consecrated life. It’s part of the life among secular clergy, nor regulars. One could say that a Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite or Salesian, if he were elected pope and submitted to this, it would also be a great act of humility, because it goes against his formation and desire to live in simplicity.
This was certainly the complaint voiced by Pope Nicholas IV, a Franciscan, Pope Pius V, a Dominican, Pope Clement XIV, another Franciscan, Pope Pius X and Pope John XXIII, both of whom were Secular Franciscans and both of whom wore the Franciscan hair shirt and chord under their white cassocks. Pope John XXIII often said that the pomp and circumstance was a much heavier cross than running the Church. He mentions this in his autobiography several times.
There are several ways of looking at this whole tiara thing. The one thing that we must avoid at all costs is looking at it from the point of view of the laity. It must be looked at from the point of view of the man who will wear it. At the end of the day, whatever he does or wears must reflect is worldview and his agenda for his pontificate, not our agenda and our worldview.
We must avoid the temptation to impose our agenda and worldview on the Pontiff. Our agenda and worldview is colored by our experience. However, our experience is colored by our little corner of the Church. The Pontiff has a much bigger view of the Church than any of us will ever have. His agenda will be very different from our own.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I think the biggest part of the fear of an ascetic aesthetic for ecclesiastical ceremonies is that there is a disconnect between it “being” something versus “not being” something. For example, in the religious priesthood, it is clear that simplicity is a hallmark of life because it is a characteristic of their spirituality, regardless of what order/congregation/whatever they belong to. The simplicity of the Franciscans is something, it is a thing, a characteristic of Franciscan spirituality, in itself. In relinquishing pomp and circumstance, religious priests are not running away from something so much as they are going toward something. This ancient, venerable tradition is good and understandable.
Where we run into problems is that simplicity and an almost ascetic aesthetic is also a hallmark of something else: the modern world, which is a secularist dragon needing to be slayed. Modern Western culture is deeply fond of demure, clean, simple, sparse, plain, unadorned, cerebral, pensive looks. And this is not, in this case, a positive thing. Modern Western culture finds simplicity attractive not because modern Western culture admires monkish life, but because modern Western culture hates its Euro-centric, monarchical past. Modern Western culture is afraid of where it came from, or at least, where it thinks it came from. So, for the modern Western world, a simple aesthetic is preferred for the opposite reasons it is preferred in the Catholic religious world. The modern Western world is running away from something, and it doesn’t even have a destination in sight. The modern elite Westerner sees the German Baroque churches, or the Gothic cathedrals of France, and thinks to himself, “Well, that’s nice, but the culture that built these buildings was just full of meanies, and we are just so much better than they were, and don’t they know how outmoded that culture was, and how dumb they were, blah blah blah…”
So, for the religious priest, simplicity as a characteristic of his life marks a certain joy, a joy of running toward Christ. But for the secularist, modern elite Western world, simplicity as a characteristic of life marks nothing but a hate for the past. So a positive characteristic versus a negative characteristic, a thing versus a lack of a thing/non-thing.
Many Catholics conflate the simplicity of the religious life with the simplicity of the aesthetic of the modern Western world, and then assume that, because the Western world hates the Church, that the characteristics of the modern Western world–in this case, an aesthetic marked by simplicity and plainness–should be avoided at all costs in ecclesiastical ceremonies.
In a certain sense, this is all just an unfortunate, wonky historical aberration. But perhaps the Church could do a better job of explaining–given, of course, that this ascetic, plain, unadorned aesthetic is going to mark the Church’s outward life for the forseeable future, as far as we can tell, for whatever reason–that this aesthetic is being embraced not as a way of giving in to the secular monster of modern Western culture, but because the (Latin) Church has simply found it opportune at this point in history, for whatever reason, to embrace more of her monkish side. I think the Church needs to do a better job of clearly stating that She is doing this for the love of Christ and not because of a hate of Her past and the past of the Western world.
People who would like to see a restoration of certain older ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements do not argue for this simply on the basis of something like, “This Papal Tiara thing looks nice, I like it, so let’s hope the next pope wears it.” There is a level of that, but it is more than that. These people, and I include myself in this group oftentimes, argue for the restoration of these things because the “noble simplicity” thing is a fine line to walk, and it can seem that, at times, the Church is just giving in to the secularist culture around Her by relinquishing the outward splendor that has characterized Her ecclesiastical ceremonies for centuries.
This is not about Papal Tiaras, it is about underlying ideas/reasons/motivations, etc. Perhaps perception is, indeed, everything. At least sometimes.
PS/disclaimer: I know not only monks (“monkish” used above) are characterized by simplicity, that also friars are as well, but I just use this term because people get it.
Where we run into problems is that simplicity and an almost ascetic aesthetic is also a hallmark of something else: the modern world, which is a secularist dragon needing to be slayed. Modern Western culture is deeply fond of demure, clean, simple, sparse, plain, unadorned, cerebral, pensive looks. And this is not, in this case, a positive thing. Modern Western culture finds simplicity attractive not because modern Western culture admires monkish life, but because modern Western culture hates its Euro-centric, monarchical past. Modern Western culture is afraid of where it came from, or at least, where it thinks it came from. So, for the modern Western world, a simple aesthetic is preferred for the opposite reasons it is preferred in the Catholic religious world. The modern Western world is running away from something, and it doesn’t even have a destination in sight. The modern elite Westerner sees the German Baroque churches, or the Gothic cathedrals of France, and thinks to himself, “Well, that’s nice, but the culture that built these buildings was just full of meanies, and we are just so much better than they were, and don’t they know how outmoded that culture was, and how dumb they were, blah blah blah…”
So, for the religious priest, simplicity as a characteristic of his life marks a certain joy, a joy of running toward Christ. But for the secularist, modern elite Western world, simplicity as a characteristic of life marks nothing but a hate for the past. So a positive characteristic versus a negative characteristic, a thing versus a lack of a thing/non-thing.
Many Catholics conflate the simplicity of the religious life with the simplicity of the aesthetic of the modern Western world, and then assume that, because the Western world hates the Church, that the characteristics of the modern Western world–in this case, an aesthetic marked by simplicity and plainness–should be avoided at all costs in ecclesiastical ceremonies.
In a certain sense, this is all just an unfortunate, wonky historical aberration. But perhaps the Church could do a better job of explaining–given, of course, that this ascetic, plain, unadorned aesthetic is going to mark the Church’s outward life for the forseeable future, as far as we can tell, for whatever reason–that this aesthetic is being embraced not as a way of giving in to the secular monster of modern Western culture, but because the (Latin) Church has simply found it opportune at this point in history, for whatever reason, to embrace more of her monkish side. I think the Church needs to do a better job of clearly stating that She is doing this for the love of Christ and not because of a hate of Her past and the past of the Western world.
People who would like to see a restoration of certain older ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements do not argue for this simply on the basis of something like, “This Papal Tiara thing looks nice, I like it, so let’s hope the next pope wears it.” There is a level of that, but it is more than that. These people, and I include myself in this group oftentimes, argue for the restoration of these things because the “noble simplicity” thing is a fine line to walk, and it can seem that, at times, the Church is just giving in to the secularist culture around Her by relinquishing the outward splendor that has characterized Her ecclesiastical ceremonies for centuries.
This is not about Papal Tiaras, it is about underlying ideas/reasons/motivations, etc. Perhaps perception is, indeed, everything. At least sometimes.
PS/disclaimer: I know not only monks (“monkish” used above) are characterized by simplicity, that also friars are as well, but I just use this term because people get it.
J
JReducation
Guest
Well said. By the way, I think the word that you’re looking for is “monastic” not “monkish” LOL.
It is certainly true that the secular world does not understand the simplicity of the friar or the monk.
It is also true that the secular world, including Catholics do not understand that there is a chasm of difference between priesthood and consecrated life. They are not interchangeable words. A priest is one animal and a consecrated man is another animal. By some act of grace, some males are called to priestly ministry within the consecrated life.
Here is where the difficulty would lay for a Dominican, Franciscan, Benedictine or other. The man is first called to become a consecrated man. In other words, he is called to be something that no other man in the Church is called to be. He is called to be a religious. This excludes most of our priests. Only 40% of our priests are called to consecrate their lives to God. They are called to ministry, not called to the consecrated life, hence the term, secular priest, meaning a priest who lives in the world.
Once the man completes his formation as a religious and consecrates his life to God making solemn vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, only then can the Church consider the possibility that he may be called to be a cleric. Notice, I did not say priest. Why not? Because he can be a permanent deacon. Let’s move forward.
Let’s take someone like Cardinal Sean, whom you people like to call Cardinal O’Malley when no one else in the Church calls a Capuchin Cardinal by his last name. It’s not done. But that’s another offense to be dealt with on another day.
This man has been called to consecrate his life as a friar. Afterward, he was called to be a cleric. Eventually, the Church honored him with the rank of cardinal. Cardinal is a rank, not an order of the priesthood. He could have been a lay brother and still be a cardinal. We’ve had several in the Franciscan order. Another story for another day.
Let’s say that in the conclave, God and Church call him to become Bishop of Rome. He’s not changing in the ontological sense. He’s still a brother. He’s still a bishop. Now, he’s the Bishop of Rome. He is now a Franciscan brother who is the Bishop of Rome, in that order. Therefore, his initial commitment to God as a friar is still binding. The only difference is that he is no longer subordinate to the superior of the order. He IS the superior of every religious order in the Church, male and female.
Therefore, he has to make a choice, to give external witness to his consecration to the Franciscan way of life, which will never go away . . . or to accept all of the “trappings” of the papacy with a Franciscan attitude.
He can say to himself:
“OK, I’ll put on all of this fancy regalia, which goes against my grain and against everything that I have done all of my life. I will do so for the good of the Church, because at the end of the day, a friar must always be poor. The greatest act of poverty is placing the good of another over one’s personal good.”
On the other side of the coin:
He can take the position taken by other regular popes. By the way, the term is “regular” not “religious”. One is a religious. A priest who is a religious is a regular priest as opposed to a secular priest. In this case, he would be a regular bishop. But this bishop is now the Bishop of Rome = Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
The position taken by Nicholas, Pius and Clement, which are the ones whom I remember the best, was that the papacy was neither a form of consecration nor a step in Holy Orders. Therefore, they were not bound to the externals of the papacy. They were bound to fulfill the duties of the office. They did so, but externally, they were friars. They dressed up, if you want to use that term, only for liturgy and an official portrait.
Many people think that Pope John Paul I was the first pontiff to turn down the tiara. That’s not true. Pope Nicholas IV refused it, because he was a Franciscan. Pope Clement XIV also a Franciscan and also refused it. I’m not so sure about Pope Pius V.
There is a funny story about Pope Nicholas. It may be a legend. I have no idea. But it’s cute. The official portrait required a tiara. He refused to wear one. Finally, he had the portrait painted and placed the tiara on a table and said, “There, now paint that onto my head.” That’s how we come to have a portrait of him with the tiara. I said, I may be legend. No one can prove or disprove it.
Anyway, the case is not as simple as people want to make it. For a regular bishop who is elected pope, this is a conflict. His vocation is not to be a monarch. That’s his ministry. Pope Benedict rightly referred to it as “the Petrine Ministry”. The ministry is separate from the consecrated life and from the priesthood. He is no more a priest or a religious, because he’s pope.
The question for these men becomes what does the Church need, a visible religious or a visible monarch?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
As I see it, the whole difficulty with the stripped-down version of liturgical spirituality is with the traditional Catholic understanding of simplicity versus the modernist and post-modern understanding of simplicity.
The traditional Catholic understanding is venerable because it is a way for certain people to contemplate Christ and be more like Him. Traditional Catholic simplicity is part of a larger charism, a larger spirituality. It is an aspect of an organic whole, and it has a good goal. The modernist/post-modern understanding of it is a hate of the past of a certain part of the world and a way to reinvent Western culture in a secular, atheistic mode.
It’s kind of like mistaking someone wearing an orange shirt for the escaped convict wearing an orange jumpsuit. This is extremely simplified, but I hope it helps people understand the issue here from a social point of view. The difficulties with simplicity are really a case of mistaken identity.
Thank you for your above post, Br. JR.
The traditional Catholic understanding is venerable because it is a way for certain people to contemplate Christ and be more like Him. Traditional Catholic simplicity is part of a larger charism, a larger spirituality. It is an aspect of an organic whole, and it has a good goal. The modernist/post-modern understanding of it is a hate of the past of a certain part of the world and a way to reinvent Western culture in a secular, atheistic mode.
It’s kind of like mistaking someone wearing an orange shirt for the escaped convict wearing an orange jumpsuit. This is extremely simplified, but I hope it helps people understand the issue here from a social point of view. The difficulties with simplicity are really a case of mistaken identity.
Thank you for your above post, Br. JR.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Two phrases that perfectly illustrate why the modern Western world’s brand of simplicity is not only aesthetically bad, but represents evil:
There is a genuine, good Christian simplicity to be had, that simplicity found in Catholic religious communities. This has been a venerable tradition not only of Western Catholic religious life, but of Eastern as well, practically since the beginning of religious life. This kind of simplicity–and I do mean “kind” in a very deliberate meaning of that word–is very Catholic, because it is part of spirituality, spirituality which leads to Christ. So there is a legitimacy to what Br. JR argues about simplicity. This is not to say that every single instance of simple architecture, vesture, liturgical vessels, etc., found in religious communities is good from an aesthetic perspective, but it does mean that simplicity is a genuine aesthetic principle in these cases because it is underpinned by a simplicity of life, a characteristic of a genuine spirituality.
One of my personal favorite pictures is an image from the beginning of the Canon in a Cistercian Low Mass: 1.bp.blogspot.com/-9XpkcKz7bFg/UOooni52QWI/AAAAAAAAWo0/u66vYsdWIFA/s1600/mbu_20090113_11.jpg
It is so absolutely simple, so austere, without being harsh and brash. The monk’s chasuble is quite simple, but also quite pleasant. It is austere, but without hating ornament. The altar with candles and large crucifix is quite nice. The flowers show us that this is clearly a feast day of some kind. Overall, this image is replete with monastic simplicity, but it clearly shows that care was taken, and that the history of the Church was respected. Elegance and balance typify this image.
On the other hand, we find a different kind of simplicity, the simplicity which typifies the overwhelming majority of modern and postmodern art and architecture. It is cold, plain, metallic, blockish, sharp, and so on. The modern Western world does not fancy a simple aesthetic because it is trying to find Jesus in the silence. The modern Western world fancies a simple aesthetic because the modern Western world hates the history its own past. It is embarrassed of its Christian roots which have held it together over the past two millennia. It sees the deeply Christian symbols, motifs and themes of the Western aesthetics these 2,000 years and it hates this. So it tries to create a vacuum. Disclaimer: in the same way that not every monastery ever built is aesthetically wonderful, not every piece of modern art or architecture is positively horrible. I am just articulating overarching themes we see.
There are currently two main kinds of aesthetic simplicity in the West: Christian monastic and secular modernist. The former is legitimate because of the ideals and principles it is predicated upon, the latter is completely illegitimate because of the ideals and principles it is predicated upon.
takimag.com/article/modern_art_socialisms_ugly_whore_joseph_mckenzie/print#axzz2NEY6OUAk
valleyofourlady.org/cistercianarchitecture2.html
There is a genuine, good Christian simplicity to be had, that simplicity found in Catholic religious communities. This has been a venerable tradition not only of Western Catholic religious life, but of Eastern as well, practically since the beginning of religious life. This kind of simplicity–and I do mean “kind” in a very deliberate meaning of that word–is very Catholic, because it is part of spirituality, spirituality which leads to Christ. So there is a legitimacy to what Br. JR argues about simplicity. This is not to say that every single instance of simple architecture, vesture, liturgical vessels, etc., found in religious communities is good from an aesthetic perspective, but it does mean that simplicity is a genuine aesthetic principle in these cases because it is underpinned by a simplicity of life, a characteristic of a genuine spirituality.
One of my personal favorite pictures is an image from the beginning of the Canon in a Cistercian Low Mass: 1.bp.blogspot.com/-9XpkcKz7bFg/UOooni52QWI/AAAAAAAAWo0/u66vYsdWIFA/s1600/mbu_20090113_11.jpg
It is so absolutely simple, so austere, without being harsh and brash. The monk’s chasuble is quite simple, but also quite pleasant. It is austere, but without hating ornament. The altar with candles and large crucifix is quite nice. The flowers show us that this is clearly a feast day of some kind. Overall, this image is replete with monastic simplicity, but it clearly shows that care was taken, and that the history of the Church was respected. Elegance and balance typify this image.
On the other hand, we find a different kind of simplicity, the simplicity which typifies the overwhelming majority of modern and postmodern art and architecture. It is cold, plain, metallic, blockish, sharp, and so on. The modern Western world does not fancy a simple aesthetic because it is trying to find Jesus in the silence. The modern Western world fancies a simple aesthetic because the modern Western world hates the history its own past. It is embarrassed of its Christian roots which have held it together over the past two millennia. It sees the deeply Christian symbols, motifs and themes of the Western aesthetics these 2,000 years and it hates this. So it tries to create a vacuum. Disclaimer: in the same way that not every monastery ever built is aesthetically wonderful, not every piece of modern art or architecture is positively horrible. I am just articulating overarching themes we see.
There are currently two main kinds of aesthetic simplicity in the West: Christian monastic and secular modernist. The former is legitimate because of the ideals and principles it is predicated upon, the latter is completely illegitimate because of the ideals and principles it is predicated upon.
Z
Zeno11
Guest
Humble itself ‘below it’s place’???
‘Christ was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross…’
'‘He who wishes to be greatest amongst you must be the servant of all’
We certainly have a model of humility to follow in Jesus Christ. I have no idea how the Church, following this Man, has ended up bedecked in tiaras, flowing robes and amassing wealth and riches. I’d bet my last penny that Jesus Christ is not too thrilled about it either.
Weren’t we told to go out and not even take a change of cloak with us? Aren’t we supposed to shun the vain materialistic riches of this world? How does a Pope in a tiara sitting on a golden throne in any way represent the person of Jesus Christ? Sorry, just don’t follow all this illogical behaviour at all. If we are to represent Christ to the world, then surely our bishops and especially the Pope should be humble in dress and appearance?
And I disagree. I think it would speak volumes to unbelievers if the church were to adopt a more monk like style of dress and behaviour. I have even heard other Christians accuse the Pope of being the antichrist because of the throne he sits on with the golden cherubim, which is a description of the Throne of God in the Bible ‘so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God’; they say that makes him the son of perdition.
I wish we could have a humble Pope who would do away with all that materialistic stuff; who are we trying to impress here? God or man?
E
Esrb99
Guest
Were the Israelites sinners when God told them to adorn the temple with exotic wood pillars gilded with gold and jewels, heavy cloths, and silks for their altar of sacrifice?
O
OraLabora
Guest
No.
Would the next pope be a sinner if he chose to remain simple and humble in the example set by Christ?
No.
I don’t see anywhere in the New Testament where it says that Peter and his successors should adorn his office with all the trappings of royalty. Quite the contrary the words of Jesus indicate that His ministers should indeed embrace a life of simplicity. If the next pope choses to take that direction as Catholics we have no other choice than to respect his choice and remain loyal and obedient to him. And perhaps applaud him for his courage.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that the real issue is for the rest of us not to try to impose on the pope a model that he should follow, especially if he comes from one of the religious orders. We have to remember that men who join religious orders want to be religious.
They have accepted to be ordained bishops out of a sense of obedience. They accepted to be cardinals out of the same sense. That obedience is often grounded in their religious vocation, not despite their vocation to the religious life.
I can certainly see a religious who is elected pope lay aside his habit and don the white cassock out of respect for the office and because it’s what the world is used to seeing. But that does not mean that he has to adopt the rest of the externals that were once part of the papacy.
Those who are reasonable would certainly understand the simplicity of a Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite or Salesian. Anyone who does not is not a reasonable person. It would be like expecting a Polish and a German pope to become Italians. They did not. They continued to be the people they were born to be.
The one size fits all popes is unreasonable and unfair.
They have accepted to be ordained bishops out of a sense of obedience. They accepted to be cardinals out of the same sense. That obedience is often grounded in their religious vocation, not despite their vocation to the religious life.
I can certainly see a religious who is elected pope lay aside his habit and don the white cassock out of respect for the office and because it’s what the world is used to seeing. But that does not mean that he has to adopt the rest of the externals that were once part of the papacy.
Those who are reasonable would certainly understand the simplicity of a Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite or Salesian. Anyone who does not is not a reasonable person. It would be like expecting a Polish and a German pope to become Italians. They did not. They continued to be the people they were born to be.
The one size fits all popes is unreasonable and unfair.
- Status