Please Explain -- Pope breaks with protocol by bowing to Queen Rania of Jordan

[JReducation]

Jimmy Akin just posted a piece on this within the past couple of hours. If you’re interested, you can find the article** here**.

Mr Akins is satirizing the original comments that have flown around. He’s perfectly right. The comments do not take into consideration many factors. Mr. Akins left out the religious part, which people often do, because most of us assume that Catholics know that the pope is a religious and know that this means he’s a different kind of pope. Add 2 + 2 and we get 4. These customs that people are talking about are not dogmatic and the fact that popes who are religious have not followed all of them proves it.

This type of thinking is exactly why we need a Papal Coronation.

But Credo, even if we had Papal Coronations, there probably would not have been one for Pope Francis. St. Ignatius was very clear that the Jesuits are not to accept any office unless it’s mandated by the Church.

In this case, the Church elects a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff. In accordance with the values of St. Ignatius, he’s free to accept the election as a mandate. But the mandate ends there. The Church cannot mandate that a pope accept a monarchy. The Church has no such authority.

Therefore, if the custom were still in place. a Jesuit would have to think twice before accepting to be crowned. He’d have to seriously ask himself whether Ignatius consider a coronation a Church mandate.

I don’t see how it can be a Church mandate. As a Franciscan, I would say, “Let’s not do it this time.”

Try to see it this way. We who are faithful religious are going to be faithful to our founders. The founder will always be the compass. I would look back to St. Francis. Cardinal Bergoglio would look back to St. Ignatius. Someone else would look back to St. Benedict and so forth.

You do want religious to be faithful to their founders, do you not?

 

[TrueLight]

PS. None of the Franciscan popes have ever allowed themselves to be crowned or carried. If I’m not mistaken, neither have Dominicans or Benedictines. I know that St. Pius V refused to wear the papal robes. That’s how the white came into use. He insisted on wearing his habit with a pectoral cross and the Fisherman’s Ring. They only wore the robes for liturgical functions. The secular popes wore them all the time. The religious wore their habits.

If the next pope is a Franciscan, he’ll wear grey, brown or black with a white cincture and sandals to his installation mass. Don’t think of it too far fetched. The number of Franciscan bishops has gone up with Pope Francis.

What an interesting topic for further research!

I certainly understand wanting to wear one’s habit or something similar.

But I’m interested to know if the Religious who became Popes tended to break away from what was considered at the time traditional papal protocol (excluding the vestments).

 

[MorEphrem]

I find nothing wrong in itself of Pope Francis bowing to someone. However, whatever happened to avoiding things of particular scandal. I feel like the Pope bowing to an individual who is representative of Hashemite power is a bit… you know. That being said, it is custom in the Middle East that men do not kiss women, and in the instance you are respectfully greeting someone without touching them you put your right hand over your heart and slightly bow your head. Even that, though, is grounds for being widely misunderstood because the vast majority of Catholics are not accustom to Middle Eastern culture.

Anyway, to those saying how terrible it is to dare to criticize the Pope, even Peter was not irreproachable. Do not add dogmas to where there are none.

 

[malphono]

I find nothing wrong in itself of Pope Francis bowing to someone. However, whatever happened to avoiding things of particular scandal. I feel like the Pope bowing to an individual who is representative of Hashemite power is a bit… you know. That being said, it is custom in the Middle East that men do not kiss women, and in the instance you are respectfully greeting someone without touching them you put your right hand over your heart and slightly bow your head. Even that, though, is grounds for being widely misunderstood because the vast majority of Catholics are not accustom to Middle Eastern culture.

Anyway, to those saying how terrible it is to dare to criticize the Pope, even Peter was not irreproachable. Do not add dogmas to where there are none.

This is essentially true and while I don’t disagree, I’m not so sure about the first sentence. The problem there touches more on the the fact that the Pope is a sovereign head of state. When greeting another sovereign, the two are equals, so there is no kneeling, or bowing, or kowtowing, unless it’s mutual. In this case, though, the Queen involved is not a sovereign in her own right. King Abdullah is the sovereign.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hope I can mention this.

The Holy Father is from Argentina (Of Italian roots).

My son’s Godfather is from Venezuela (of Italian roots himself) perhaps slightly younger than the Holy Father by a year or so.

My son’s Godfather is very gentlemanly. He’s the type to open car doors, walk a woman to her front door to make sure she gets in ok, he offers his seat. Actually, the Holy father’s mannerisms and speech when he speaks Italian remind me a great deal of my son’s Godfather.

I find it very charming, because it isn’t something that we really see anymore.

I interpreted the bow as a gentlemanly action by the Pope. I’m sure his mannerisms have been set before he became a Pope.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Mr Akins is satirizing the original comments that have flown around. He’s perfectly right. The comments do not take into consideration many factors. Mr. Akins left out the religious part, which people often do, because most of us assume that Catholics know that the pope is a religious and know that this means he’s a different kind of pope. Add 2 + 2 and we get 4. These customs that people are talking about are not dogmatic and the fact that popes who are religious have not followed all of them proves it.

But Credo, even if we had Papal Coronations, there probably would not have been one for Pope Francis. St. Ignatius was very clear that the Jesuits are not to accept any office unless it’s mandated by the Church.

In this case, the Church elects a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff. In accordance with the values of St. Ignatius, he’s free to accept the election as a mandate. But the mandate ends there. The Church cannot mandate that a pope accept a monarchy. The Church has no such authority.

Therefore, if the custom were still in place. a Jesuit would have to think twice before accepting to be crowned. He’d have to seriously ask himself whether Ignatius consider a coronation a Church mandate.

I don’t see how it can be a Church mandate. As a Franciscan, I would say, “Let’s not do it this time.”

Try to see it this way. We who are faithful religious are going to be faithful to our founders. The founder will always be the compass. I would look back to St. Francis. Cardinal Bergoglio would look back to St. Ignatius. Someone else would look back to St. Benedict and so forth.

You do want religious to be faithful to their founders, do you not?

But can’t Pope Francis technically dispense himself of the vows required by the Jesuits?

 

[otjm]

But can’t Pope Francis technically dispense himself of the vows required by the Jesuits?

You mean, can he technically stop being a Jesuit?

Why would he do that? He has been a jesuit for what 50+ years? 55+?

He didn’t “run” for the position. They chose him for what he was and is - intelligent, a Jesuit; articulate, a Jesuit, humble, a Jesuit…

Why would he dispense himself from what he is - a Jesuit? Being pope doesn’t require it. What other reason would exist for him to suddenly stop being who he is?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Mr Akins is satirizing the original comments that have flown around. He’s perfectly right. The comments do not take into consideration many factors. Mr. Akins left out the religious part, which people often do, because most of us assume that Catholics know that the pope is a religious and know that this means he’s a different kind of pope. Add 2 + 2 and we get 4. These customs that people are talking about are not dogmatic and the fact that popes who are religious have not followed all of them proves it.

But Credo, even if we had Papal Coronations, there probably would not have been one for Pope Francis. St. Ignatius was very clear that the Jesuits are not to accept any office unless it’s mandated by the Church.

In this case, the Church elects a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome and Pontiff. In accordance with the values of St. Ignatius, he’s free to accept the election as a mandate. But the mandate ends there. The Church cannot mandate that a pope accept a monarchy. The Church has no such authority.

Therefore, if the custom were still in place. a Jesuit would have to think twice before accepting to be crowned. He’d have to seriously ask himself whether Ignatius consider a coronation a Church mandate.

I don’t see how it can be a Church mandate. As a Franciscan, I would say, “Let’s not do it this time.”

Try to see it this way. We who are faithful religious are going to be faithful to our founders. The founder will always be the compass. I would look back to St. Francis. Cardinal Bergoglio would look back to St. Ignatius. Someone else would look back to St. Benedict and so forth.

You do want religious to be faithful to their founders, do you not?

Thank you Br. Jr. but this has nothing to do with my comment. I personally pray for a Papal Coronation because Catholics need to see that ceremony within the Church, even something as glitz and glamour as a Papal Coronation, complete with tiara, is not an evil thing or one that should shunned. I brought this up because one poster said Pope Francis bowed because he is humble, and while that may be the case, it does not logically follow that the other Popes in history did not bow because they were not humble. I’m not saying the poster was directly implying this; however, some people incorrectly assume that the Popes who didn’t bow in the past were not being humble because they didn’t do what humble Pope Francis did do.

There is this odd notion that simple always = humble, and that anything not simple = not humble.

Bowing to foriegn powers = Humble
Not bowing = Not humble



No Papal Coronation = Humble
Papal Coronation = Not humble

 

[triumphguy]

We’re the church Militant, NOT the church triumphant, and the only King is Christ the King.

It’s got nothing to do with pretending to be humble.

It’s got to do with what’s appropriate.

The Pope has NO temporal power. That ship has sailed long ago.

The Pope bowed because he is a gentleman.

No coronation, because he is not a King - and our King wore a crown of thorns, not gold.

Something is not more true, or more beautiful because it is all gussied up (or chromed).

I like a motorbike I can ride, not polish!

That’s why there’s so much talk of Triumph in the OT and not Harley

And that’s why I like this Pope.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

We’re the church Militant, NOT the church triumphant, and the only King is Christ the King.

It would be a pretty cool way of publicly saying we’re still in the fight by having a Papal Coronation. Secondly I don’t see how the Papal Coronation takes away from the Kingship of Christ? I think you’re reaching a little bit too much with that accusation.

It’s got nothing to do with pretending to be humble.

It’s got to do with what’s appropriate.

It has to do with what the Pope believes is appropriate at that time. It’s his perogative which is why a Papal Coronation is still something a future Pope could still choose to do if he wanted to.

The Pope has NO temporal power. That ship has sailed long ago.

Really, the Pope has no power within the Church given His office as Vicar of Christ?

The Pope bowed because he is a gentleman.

I don’t see where I said He wasn’t

No coronation, because he is not a King - and our King wore a crown of thorns, not gold.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and plenty of Popes saw it as appropriate to wear the tiara even though our King wore a crown of thorns.

Something is not truer, or more beautiful because it is all gussied up (or chromed).

I never said it was. I was simply saying the spirit of thinking something is purer because it is simple and skimpy is also a false assumption. But you may want to ask yourself if the gussied up part might help us outwardly procalim the importance of a truth we hold sacred? I would think it would since if you saw an altar with a box on it you might not think anything important is there; however, if you say an altar with flowers and gold candle holders on either side of a gold tabernacle which has a veil in front of it, you might think something important is there! I mean why else would people go through all of that trouble?

Plus have you read the OT? God loved gussied up.
Yes my friend there is a method to this gussied up madness.

And that’s why I like this Pope.

So you’re saying you would not like a Pope that had a Papal Coronation and who wore the tiara? I personally would like the Pope either way.

 

[Zekariya]

Jimmy Akin quoted this concerning Pope Francis’ bowing:

“Toward the end of the year 800, Pope Leo III asked Charlemagne to come to Rome. On Christmas Day Charlemagne attended mass at St. Peters. When he finished his prayers, Pope [Saint] Leo prostrated himself before Charlemagne and then placed a crown upon his head. Pope Leo then said “life and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peaceful emperor of the Romans.” This was an extremely important act. Charlemagne became the first emperor in the west since the last Roman emperor was deposed in 476.”

[Bold mine]

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-should-we-make-of-pope-francis-bowing-when-greeting-people/#ixzz2daY6LFTk

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Kind of makes you wonder what kind of hell the Pope would catch if he broke wind in public.

 

[triumphguy]

…

So you’re saying you would not like a Pope that had a Papal Coronation and who wore the tiara? I personally would like the Pope either way.

I would like him for different reasons…

I liked Pope Benedict because of his intellect, and the purity of his teachings; I liked Blessed Pope John Paul (I would need a paragraph why), and John XXIII for his humanity, and Pius X for his saintliness.

 

[triumphguy]

Kind of makes you wonder what kind of hell the Pope would catch if he broke wind in public.

I’m sure he has… that’s where heavy papal vestments would be useful

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I’m sure he has… that’s where heavy papal vestments would be useful

See gussied up can help. I mean if you’re going to break wind you might as well do so in style.

 

[triumphguy]

BTW everyone:

Who did the Pope NOT bow to?

He did not bow to the King, he bowed to the woman.

Think about the symbolism of that - especially given that it is a muslim king and a muslim woman!

I see that as a very Franciscan act of chivalry, rather than humility.

 

[adawgj]

I’m sure he bowed as a sign of respect. Also I think he takes his religious vows quite seriously.

 

[JReducation]

What an interesting topic for further research!

I certainly understand wanting to wear one’s habit or something similar.

But I’m interested to know if the Religious who became Popes tended to break away from what was considered at the time traditional papal protocol (excluding the vestments).

We have to remember that the papacy as we know it is a secular papacy. The last religious to be pope was in the 1700s. I’d have to look up the year. For 200 years, the secular clergy has dominated the papacy and the same secular clergy has standardized certain practices that we now believe to be part of the papacy.

Back in the day of Pope Nicholas who was a Franciscan and Pope Pius who was a Dominican and so forth, a secular pope was not as common. Most popes came from the religious orders. The customs were much more fluid that they have been since the secular clergy took over the papacy. In other words, there was not many practices that were customary. The one custom, if we can call it such, is that the pope was treated with great deference. We wouldn’t be having this discussion in the 13th century. Who were clergy, religious and laity to even discuss it. He was the pope and he did as he pleased. Case in point, the Rule of St. Francis. Honorius III overruled Honorius II to approve the Rule of St. Francis, but held on to the decree of Honorius II to deny the Dominicans a rule of their own.

The same came to dress and ceremony. Many popes also came from noble houses such as the Borgias. They brought with them certain customs that were not innate to the papacy, but to their royal places in society. Many of these remained with the papacy, such as red shoes and a red mantle. Later, pius tradition would say it was representative of the blood of the martyrs. But Church scholars say that’s not true and has never been said by any pope.

We have gotten into a rut, because we had had secular clergy as popes for 200 years. They come without traditions of their on, unlike the religious orders.

Hope I can mention this.

The Holy Father is from Argentina (Of Italian roots).

My son’s Godfather is from Venezuela (of Italian roots himself) perhaps slightly younger than the Holy Father by a year or so.

My son’s Godfather is very gentlemanly. He’s the type to open car doors, walk a woman to her front door to make sure she gets in ok, he offers his seat. Actually, the Holy father’s mannerisms and speech when he speaks Italian remind me a great deal of my son’s Godfather.

I find it very charming, because it isn’t something that we really see anymore.

I interpreted the bow as a gentlemanly action by the Pope. I’m sure his mannerisms have been set before he became a Pope.

Be careful with that one. Someone already go into trouble calling Pope Francis “Italian”. He was not pleased. He made it clear that his parents were Italian immigrants and that he is Hispanic and from Argentina. The tuth is that his Italian is not too good. I speak Italian fluently and he sounds like me. There are certain sounds that when I make them, you can tell that I’m an anglophone. With him, you can tell that his Hispanic. Especially his cadence is very Spanish.

But can’t Pope Francis technically dispense himself of the vows required by the Jesuits?

He can. Anyone who can dispense others can dispense himself. However, why would he want to cease to be someone to become something? A pope occupies a ministry in the Church. When he dies or retires, he ceases to be pope.

A religious belongs to a class of persons in the Church, almost like an ethnic group. Alive, retired or dead, Pope Francis will always be a Jesuit. It is greater than the papacy, because it says something about his soul, not his job. I don’t mean great as in more valuable than the Petrine Ministry. That’s a different subject. I’m speaking about an identity

Thank you Br. Jr. but this has nothing to do with my comment. I personally pray for a Papal Coronation because Catholics need to see that ceremony within the Church,

I understood you from the beginning. My question to you remains unanswered. Even if every pope this century had a papal coronation, once you elect a religious, there would be no coronation. How would you feel about that?

More importantly, does the Church create a law the overrules the religious life so that a religious elected to the papacy must accept a coronation?

Such a law could be theologically in error?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I understood you from the beginning. My question to you remains unanswered. Even if every pope this century had a papal coronation, once you elect a religious, there would be no coronation. How would you feel about that?

More importantly, does the Church create a law the overrules the religious life so that a religious elected to the papacy must accept a coronation?

Such a law could be theologically in error?

I don’t believe you have understood me Br. because if you had you would not be asking these questions since I was not advocating a forced papal coronation on a pope who is also a religious, nor was I advocating for forced papal coronations on non-religious who are elected to the papacy. I obviously have no problem with a religious who was elected pope, not doing a papal coronation, and likewise I have no problem with the choice of non-religious pope not having a papal coronation.

God Bless.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe you have understood me Br. because if you had you would not be asking these questions since I was not advocating a forced papal coronation on a pope who is also a religious, nor was I advocating for forced papal coronations on non-religious who are elected to the papacy. I obviously have no problem with a religious who was elected pope, not doing a papal coronation, and likewise I have no problem with the choice of non-religious pope not having a papal coronation.

God Bless.

So then your wording in this post was a mistake.

This type of thinking is exactly why we need a Papal Coronation.

If we need a Papal Coronation, then we should have a law that requires it.

If we don’t want to create such a law, then the need is not that great or may not exist at all.