Papal Tiara

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4Jesus

Guest
Why is it that as of 1964, the Pope has abandoned the Papal Tiara and has settled for a Bishop’s mitre instead?
 
The tiara was never used liturgically. Popes have always worn a mitre for liturgical purposes. He is, after all, first and foremost, Bishop of Rome. 🙂
 
Well, the above is true, but the tiara was worn in processions. So when the Pope was entering the Basilica, he would wear a mantum (basically a long cope) and tiara.
 
Since the Papal State were no longer, the idea of the having a tiara seemed over done. Pope Paul VI thought it was unnecessary.
 
Marie5890 said:
Since the Papal State were no longer, the idea of the having a tiara seemed over done. Pope Paul VI thought it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Basically, this. Although…not quite. Paul VI laid his Tiara on the Altar of St. Peter’s at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, supposedly in keeping with the overall humility of it. Still, he explicitly instructed that his successor be crowned…but John Paul I, who many people believe was absolutely terrified by the Papacy (in addition to being an extremely humble man in his own right), decided against it. John Paul II said the following about the Tiara when he was installed:
The last Pope to be crowned was Paul VI in 1963, but after the solemn coronation ceremony he never used the tiara again and left his Successors free to decide in this regard. Pope John Paul I, whose memory is so vivid in our hearts, did not wish to have the tiara; nor does his Successor wish it today. This is not the time to return to a ceremony and an object considered, wrongly, to be a symbol of the temporal power of the Popes. Our time calls us, urges us, obliges us to gaze on the Lord and immerse ourselves in humble and devout meditation on the mystery of the supreme power of Christ himself.
Click to expand...
You have to consider that this was a very shocking time for the Church, after a Pope had just died 33 days into his reign, and when Communism was very much emboldened and was attacking religion and western society as being hypocritical, and using those attacks to strengthen its own position with the poor people in many places. And then, of course, you have the fact that John Paul II himself was quite humble as a person, and had a character very much suited to his role as an involved church leader in Poland (he always wore a pair of brown workman’s shoes, even during his Papacy).

Benedict, for his part, did not restore the Tiara, but did restore some other trappings of Pontifical splendor. He also restored some more traditional elements of the inauguration mass. At the same time, he replaced the Tiara on his coat of arms with a Mitre (although it can properly be rendered with either)…though I have read that this relates specifically to a Mitre he received when he became a Bishop at the hands of Paul VI.

You’ll find both sides of the argument on here - those who think that a Tiara is an unnecessary extravagance for a man who walks in the shoes of St. Peter, and those who think the absence of traditional ceremony robs the church of due dignity. Any Pope, including the one we’ll choose this month, could restore the Tiara, and both JPII and B16 received Tiaras of their own that they never elected to use.

The best thing I could say…pray for its restoration.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, the above is true, but the tiara was worn in processions. So when the Pope was entering the Basilica, he would wear a mantum (basically a long cope) and tiara.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. I perhaps should note that I have nothing against the tiara or, for that matter, against the sedia gestaoria. I rather like both, not for their “imperial” aspect, but for other reasons which I shan’t go into in detail. 🙂
Marie5890 said:
Since the Papal State were no longer, the idea of the having a tiara seemed over done. Pope Paul VI thought it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Yet John XXIII did not, nor did Paul VI at his coronation. The Papal States were history in 1958 just as in 1963 at Paul VI’s election. I wonder what happened after that? :hmmm:
 
mburn16 said:
Worth pointing out that Benedict did restore the mantum:
Click to expand...
Yes … one of his many restorations. 🙂 A very classy man, I must say. Even his final exit at Castel Gandolfo was classy, particularly in its understated simplicity. Something I shall not forget.

Off topic but, FWLIW, I shall miss him greatly for that and a great many other reasons. I fear he shall be counted, along with Pius XI and Benedict XV, among the “forgotten Popes” but, as with both of the latter, never by me. 🙂
 
YoungTradCath said:
Except you see that a good foot of it was horrifically chopped off at the bottom to make it a cope.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how “horrific” it was … perhaps better that way than to have him trip on it and break his neck? Maybe I’m way off, but it seems to me that a restoration is a good thing, even if it’s modified a tad for practical reasons. Just saying …
 
Still, the fanon, the mantum, the slippers, the mozzetta and cap, etc.

Benedict has probably taken us halfway along the path of restoring full ceremony. Hopefully the next Pope will continue the trend.
 
mburn16 said:
Benedict has probably taken us halfway along the path of restoring full ceremony.
Click to expand...
Considering what came from the two prior pontificates (I’m leaving the 33 days of John-Paul I out here ), I’d posit that it’s a lot more than halfway. 🙂
mburn16 said:
Hopefully the next Pope will continue the trend.
Click to expand...
Depends, I guess. And one can hope. We’ll see who is elected. Might be more, might be a lot less, We should have a better idea in the next few weeks.
 
malphono said:
Considering what came from the two prior pontificates (I’m leaving the 33 days of John-Paul I out here ), I’d posit that it’s a lot more than halfway. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually JPI probably did more damage to Papal ceremony in his short pontificate than any of the others.
 
Considering the world wide scandals that continue to hit the church, I think it would be ill-advised to bring back the tiara…

Our Lord Himself was crowned with thorns due to our sins. Crowning a pope with a tiara just seems in not the thing to do, considering the sins of many of the heirarchy at this point in time.

The Church, the Bride of Christ, is suffering from deep wounds that have been inflicted from within, from within Her own.

This is a time for penance, not ceremony, IMO.
 
Marie5890 said:
Considering the world wide scandals that continue to hit the church, I think it would be ill-advised to bring back the tiara…

Our Lord Himself was crowned with thorns due to our sins. Crowning a pope with a tiara just seems in not the thing to do, considering the sins of many of the heirarchy at this point in time.

The Church, the Bride of Christ, is suffering from deep wounds that have been inflicted from within, from within Her own.

This is a time for penance, not ceremony, IMO.
Click to expand...
So, when, in your view, will be the appropriate time? How many more decades will be deny the church the splendor and regard it deserves? Even if you believe this is a time for penance, don’t you see a problem that we grant more dignity, more ceremony, etc. to secular heads of state than we do to the successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Christ?
 
mburn16 said:
So, when, in your view, will be the appropriate time? How many more decades will be deny the church the splendor and regard it deserves? Even if you believe this is a time for penance, don’t you see a problem that we grant more dignity, more ceremony, etc. to secular heads of state than we do to the successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Christ?
Click to expand...
Was Our Lord any less dignified with a crown of thorns???
 
Marie5890 said:
Was Our Lord any less dignified with a crown of thorns???
Click to expand...
Did he prevent himself from being anointed with expensive oils, that could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor? No, he did not. And he rebuked those who suggested he should have.
 
mburn16 said:
Did he prevent himself from being anointed with expensive oils, that could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor? No, he did not. And he rebuked those who suggested he should have.
Click to expand...
At the same time, He didn’t command that He be anointed. He chose to do it out of courtesy. Christ, despite the fact that He was God, was an example of humilty and generosity that we should all imitate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top