C
- Status
J
jbuck919
Guest
It would not take me long to “pass” your quiz after a little research, but I am content to be in the 98% because I do not, for instance, care much what Hitler’s Nazi party number was, and the SA, on purpose, became irrelevant if not non-existent after the assassination of Roem… Please be aware that it is **Mein **Kampf (Kampf–struggle–is not a feminine noun). And you may call me “hon” anytime you want; I lived for years in the area of Baltimore, Maryland.ok! quiz sent to you pm.
Getting back to the topic, before our very energetic moderators have the urge to purge, I was a little distressed to see the Pope wear such a short mitre on his recent trip to Turkey. There has been that trend for a number of years, but aesthetically it seems to be getting out of hand.
L
LilyM
Guest
:nope:
One of my parish priests was saying not long ago that someone stopped him outside the church after Mass once. They claimed that there were copies of some secret documents (gnostic gospels or such) hidden in every tabernacle of every Catholic church
So I don’t think a little thing like no VISIBLE 666 would stop the loons :nope:
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m a less is more kind of guy. The pope is the Vicar of the One Who was crowned with thorns, not a tiara. I think that Pope Paul’s relinquishing was as powerful a symbol as the tiara itself had been up until then. There was just as much power in that as there was in him being crowned with it.
Certainly the pope may wear it if he wishes. But I doubt that he will or that future popes will. It’s rather difficult to put toothpaste back into the tube.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Actually, the site linked by Marian Carroll was the Wikipedia article, just at the Answers.com website. The format of the article on the Wikipedia page is better, using an outline with hotlinks.
Agreed. And for my money, I’ll trade in a tiara for a bear wearing a backpack anyday.
K
kesa82
Guest
Now you have done it! From now on, when I look at the Holy Father, I’m going to see that cute bear with the backpack!
For some odd reason I will buy a can of beans if it has a cute picture of a bear on it.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
This is the irony of some Catholics: They have no problem criticizing something that was practiced for centuries in order to avoid criticizing or even disagreeing with something that has been done for the last 35 years (ie, not wearing the tiara).
A
AJV
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I think you’ll find that the same Catholics are perfectly willing to question (if hesitant to criticize) some of the stuff that occurred in the the last 35 years BASED ON what was done during the preceeding centuries, as opposed to voicing a knee-jerk acceptance of anything that happened before 1958. I wouldn’t ever argue that the papal tiara didn’t serve an important purpose, I would simply argue that the pope giving it up also symobolized something important.
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
And when reconcilliation with Traditional Catholics as well as a come back to Tradition is important…dont you think taking the Tiara back would also symbolize something very important?
J
jbuck919
Guest
There is much truth in this, and it extends from the most trivial to the most significant things. Immutability is a theme of Catholicism (I suppose rightly so), so nobody makes much effort to discourage the notion that everything is as it should be because it has been essentially the same in the lifetime of a given individual. JP II was JP the Great because, for a large number of the faithful, he was the only pope they ever knew as cognizant individuals. The papal tiara is sacred because even St. Peter wore it (false; only his statue in the basilica that bears his name did, and much Renaissaince iconography shows ancient popes and other saints vested as only later figures could possibly have been).
To take a trivial example, here is the announcement made on the election of a new pope: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus papam: Reverendissimum et eminentissimum dominum, Dominum ________ Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem _________. There is a word in there that has been changed for political correctness only for the last couple of conclaves. Not to leave you in suspense, it is the repetition of “dominum,” stylistically bad Latin inserted to avoid the use of the word “meum” (He is my most reverend and eminent lord). But if you want to look at the larger picture, announcing the electionof a pope with white smoke from the Sistine Chapel within the confines of Vatican City is not itself an ancient custom in the first place. It’s just a nice newer one of recent generations.
Cardinalsover 80 may not vote. They vote sitting around a table, not on individual thrones. Bells ring when a new pope is elected. He eats with company, not alone. All of these things and many more are accidents of the papacy that people preparing an article for the World Book Encyclopedia are or will be reporting as ancient customs. Taint necessarily so.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
I think that at the very least it should be retained as a symbol on papal coats of arms.
I would retain it for the very reason why people hate it-it is a symbol of absolute power, the only real absolute power, the power of the Keys.
Humility? Sometimes humility is better shown by accepting something you might not personally like for the sake of greater causes. I’m not a big fan of the “aw, shucks…” humility that gets rid of outward symbolism in order not to offend the sensibilities of people that hate us no matter what we do. If the popes started wearing sackcloth and ashes, there would be plenty of people calling them hypocrites and this, that and the other thing.
I would retain it for the very reason why people hate it-it is a symbol of absolute power, the only real absolute power, the power of the Keys.
We are sensual people, getting rid of the “baubles”, “smells and bells”, and other “flashy” things often works to kill piety and reverence. Should priests wear gunnysack chausibles (like they don’t already) because of this odd “WWJD?” attitude of liturgical/ecclesiastical minimalism?
Humility? Sometimes humility is better shown by accepting something you might not personally like for the sake of greater causes. I’m not a big fan of the “aw, shucks…” humility that gets rid of outward symbolism in order not to offend the sensibilities of people that hate us no matter what we do. If the popes started wearing sackcloth and ashes, there would be plenty of people calling them hypocrites and this, that and the other thing.
L
lak611
Guest
This link isn’t working on my computer. I can’t see the picture.
L
lak611
Guest
What is the sedia gestatoria?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Not really, no, in the balance. The pope is no less pope for never donning the Triregnum.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The chair that the popes used to be carried in.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m not suggesting that we dump everything, Comrade, as you well know (a la President Carter carrying his own luggage and wearing sweaters). I still say that in the balance, the setting aside of the Triregnum was a good thing, itself an important symbol.
A
AJV
Guest
HA! What do you know…I found a copy just put online here. This is a book that is going for $ 852.00 on Amazon and which I’ve been dying to get my hands on for a year. A wonderful, accurate and detailed treatment of vesture of the Church before reformed by Pius XII, and later to a much larger degree, Paul VI.I understand what you are saying
Does anyone has a handy copy of Nainfa on hand?
J
jbuck919
Guest
I saw Paul VI at a Wednesday audience in 1975 (it was in fact the Holy Week audience) and it was explained to us by the very able monsignor English interlocutor, who had the voice of an American radio announcer, that the pope (who had already tried to abolish the sedia) was more or less stuck with it because entering in this fashio was the only way people could see him. Now obviously, JP II actually did abolish it, and I’m not quite sure how he got around that particular issue, if he did at all. However, I would like to suggest that there has been too much of celebrity in papal entrances, particularly on liturgical occasions. Most people here probably know that the pope is (or was–I haven’t kept up) actually applauded every time he enters St. Peter’s. (As an aside, when the English martyrs were canonized, the mostly British congregation insisted on (a) seats and (b) no applause.)
In my opinion, the best thing for him to do is what any bishop would do, which is walk in solemn procession in his appropriate place, foregoing any glad-handing off to the side.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Very nicely put. I completely agree. God bless.
- Status