Restore the Triple Tiara?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Distributist:
Then you should have voted yes because the french revolution was about dethroning Catholic monarchs which protected the Church. When the revolutionaries pulled down a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus they said “we have dethroned Him” what does that tell you. Even though Jesus came to minister unto us that does not take away His Kingship for He was, is, and always will be the King of kings. Peter was called the “prince of the apostles”, he is spiritual royality. Emperers . and kings are not tyrants or dictators, they have their power from God it’s called the divine right of kings. That is why the Pope always used to crown the kings of Europe for he was the temporal king of kings while Christ is the eternal Emperor. The Pope is a king and the highest until Christ comes again. The tiara is a sign of the triple kingship of honor as mitres are signs of princeships. No other bishop can go against a legitimate order of the bishop of Rome. Now an unlawful order is a different matter for the Pope is Protect of the Faith not Lord of the Faith which only God is. Kings are meant to be ministers (or servants) of God’s justice as St. Paul says in Romans 13. The tiara was mean as an example of humility and meekness for both us and the Pope, think about why women should be covering her head in the church: crowns and head-covering are signs of humility and meekness as well as sign of honor and glory.

Read through Romans 12 & 13. Higher the office, greater the duty of the officer. Remember we do not all have the same amount of grace.

Merry Christmas and God’s grace be upon you,
Jonathan
Click to expand...
Welcome Jonathan and thanks for making your first post on this thread. 👍

How many people really associate the tiara with “humility and meekness”?
 
40.png
mgy100:
If you want the Pope to have a tiara how about raising the money to have one made and then send it to him? In other words, those that feel he should wear it, actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...
But why spend all that money on a new tiara when there are so many old (and beautiful) ones? By all means send him the money but with the expressed hope that he will wear the tiara in appreciation of your offering. 🙂
 
40.png
AJV:
Welcome Jonathan and thanks for making your first post on this thread. 👍

How many people really associate the tiara with “humility and meekness”?
Click to expand...
No rational person could think the triple tiara is a sign of humility and meekness.
Jesus on a donkey. Jesus washing the feet of the disciples.
Now these are real signs of humility and meekness.
 
Th wearing of the tiara IMO was fine during the time that the world looked to overt signs of “kingship” and “imperialism” as signs of authority and office. That time has now passed and is reflected in the more eglatarian or simple outward looks and style of royal families in the west and I think for the church too. The ostrich fans, the sede gestatoria, are from a time past. Today it’s cell phones, immediate press releases via modern electronic media, popemobiles and jet airplanes. The popes have simply moved up into the modern world in order to communicate, travel and perform their ministry. If St. Paul had the internet, the world wold be Catholic.
 
40.png
AJV:
I agree.

Another of my pet peeves is the vestments most bishops wear. Abhominable! My bishop doesn’t most of the time but some of the photos I see leave much to be desired. Most of the time they look like priests (and not well dressed priests) with some purple hat on top of the head. Noble simplicity is taken as S-I-M-P-L-I-C-I-T-Y and I see bishops wearing those chasubles with the ‘monastic’ cut or whatever-its-called, and the chi-rho on the back. (shudder) Leave those for Lent please! The vesture of bishops, IMHO, should show the hierarchal and apostolic nature of the church.
Click to expand...

Better still, no vesting of statues - at least clergy need clothing. But statues… ? 😃​

 
40.png
marysea:
The Holy See is the longest continuous monarchy extant. The Pope is the reigning monarch of his own country, an internationally recognized sovereign nation. He is also the Supreme Pontiff to whom ALL human beings are ultimately subject on this planet. I can’t think of any situation where a crown would be more appropriate. As for ‘what purpose does it serve’? The precise purpose of conveying by an historically recognized and appropriate symbol all of the above.
Click to expand...

I think the Japanese Empire is older - if the Papacy as such is to be dated to about 600, the present Queen of England goes back to at least 500 AD. The Papacy is not the same thing as the Petrine office - it is one form of it.​

The idea that there is a ruler of the world other than Jesus Christ sounds terribly off-putting. It has all the worst possible associations, of megalomania, pride, lust for power, and worst of all, confusion of the temporal with the spiritual - though one can’t expect US Catholics to realise this, since they’ve been spared most of that. St. Peter had no crown but that of martyrdom - that is a crown worth having.The pearl-&-gold finery of a triple tiara all too easily becomes a form of worldliness - and worldly is exactly what no pope should be. Please, let’s leave delusions of universal Papal kingship in the Middle Ages, where they belong.

As for symbols - what symbol could be better than the Cross ? Crowns and gold & pearls and tiaras and brocade and such stuff as that for earthly rulers - not for the servants of the Crucified. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be”. Best of all would be another martyred or crucified Pope - such a man would truly be the successor of Peter, just as Peter truly followed after Christ. The Cross is worth any number of papal crowns. ##
 
Dr. Bombay:
We had also heard this and had hoped it was apocryphal. We are disturbed to learn it may be true.

We must learn Latin on our own and thus eliminate the need for translators.:yup:
Click to expand...

Seu:​

Nosmet audivimus hunc: speraveramusque nuntium illum
spurium esse. Luget nobis maxime hunc ut verum sapere.

Unde oportet nobis omnes linguam Latinam discere, ne ultra…[someone else can translate the rest]

yleradio1.fi/nuntii/id50.shtml - Latinophili ut exultent 🙂 ##
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
We wish to extend our hopes for a joyous, holy, and peaceful Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior to all our friends at CA…all of them…even those who have the termitity to argue with us…to them do we in especial impart our prayers for a merry day and a thanks for keeping us on our toes.

Yes…we could get used to this. Now, where is our eggnog?
Click to expand...

We would be most ungrateful, did we not reciprocate, and wish you a Happy Christmastide and a Blessed New Year​

 
40.png
thistle:
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey wearing nothing on his head, and not in a Mercedes wearing a Triple Tiara.
Click to expand...

OTOH - there is this:​

1Ki 1:32 And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king.

1Ki 1:33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:

1Ki 1:34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.

1Ki 1:35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.

=====

Presumably Jesus was taking Solomonic - and Messianic - imagery, and giving it a new meaning: His Kingdom is certainly real, but it’s not like that of Solomon, which was a political kingdom, and passed away. ##
 
Never! HH Paul VI laid it on the altar at the close of the council. Metaphorically and literally, it should never be picked up again. I’m all for solemnity and dignity, but the Vicar of Christ should NOT be crowned, unless like his Master, it’s with a crown of thorns. The papal investiture/inauguration is more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
New Advent:
Probably the papal head-covering received the circlet at the time when the mitre developed from the tiara
Click to expand...
The Tiara predates the mitre. So, by your logic, since Jesus did not wear a mitre, neither should bishops? After all, it is obviously elevating him above Christ in some way (if you do not follow my logic, the mitre must be a form of crown because it evolved from the papal crown).
 
Servus Pio XII:
The Tiara predates the mitre. So, by your logic, since Jesus did not wear a mitre, neither should bishops? After all, it is obviously elevating him above Christ in some way (if you do not follow my logic, the mitre must be a form of crown because it evolved from the papal crown).
Click to expand...
Nice to have your participation SPXII and hope you had a blessed Christmas.

If both the mitre and the tiara are crowns, why have the tiara when you have a mitre? (I’m genuinely asking, not being sarcastic or anything)

Moreover, when people see a mitre and a tiara… the mitre seems like funny headgear while the tiara actually looks like a crown. The impression given by both is different.
 
Servus Pio XII:
The Tiara predates the mitre. So, by your logic, since Jesus did not wear a mitre, neither should bishops? After all, it is obviously elevating him above Christ in some way (if you do not follow my logic, the mitre must be a form of crown because it evolved from the papal crown).
Click to expand...
The mitre has always been liturgical. The tiara never has been.
 
40.png
BillyT92679:
The mitre has always been liturgical. The tiara never has been.
Click to expand...
BillyT92679, the mitre has been used on occasion, when the pope celebrated a Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite. It is just not liturgical in the Latin rite.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Since everyone has developed a fondness for the first person plural, response as follows: “We are pleased with the alacrity of your reply. We look forward to the latte and your contrition.”

We think we’ll start talking that way all the time. We rather like it.
Click to expand...
We do solemnly declare and define that there can be only one “We” on the board and that “We” is me, errr, I mean, Us!

Don’t make Us open a can of anathema on ya, Kirk! :tsktsk:
 
Are you threatening Our exalted person? We challenge you to carry out your feeble and impious threats.

Nonetheless, We, always persisting in fatherly charity, and being reluctant to break the fraternal bonds of peace and concord, do extend unto you Our fervent hope that you have enjoyed a blessed Feast of the Nativity.
 
Servus Pio XII:
The Tiara predates the mitre. So, by your logic, since Jesus did not wear a mitre, neither should bishops? After all, it is obviously elevating him above Christ in some way (if you do not follow my logic, the mitre must be a form of crown because it evolved from the papal crown).
Click to expand...
We have read and heard differently, that Saint James (first patriarch of Jerusalem) had “offered sacrifice as a mitered priest.” We question that the miter developed from the tiara, since the triregnum developed after the fall of the Western Empire and bishops were depicted wearing miter or miter-like headgear long before that. We are rather under the impression that it developed from the priestly trubans worn by the Aaronic priesthood and the Levites of the Old Covenant. We are NOT appealing to “what kind of chapeau would Our Lord have worn,” nor appealing against headgear in general. We’re appealing to “given the KIND of CROWN He did wear, AND to the fact that He said His Kingdom was not of this world, etc., should the pope wear an earthly crown?” We think not. The mitre is a liturgical piece, the triregnum isn’t. AND we think that obviously the current pope, the two preceding popes, and HH Pope Paul VI agree, otherwise HH Pope Paul VI wouldn’t have laid it on the altar, TH Popes John Paul I and the Great would have been crowned, and so would HH Pope Benedict XVI and he would have left it on his coat of arms. We also suggest that ALL future popes will more than likely follow suit. Why? Well, at the most base and cynical level, we think that some future pope who might be inclined to be crowned will look back and say,“Jeezo Pete, those guys have pretty much put the kibosh on my being crowned, because I sure don’t want to look less humble than they did.” Giving credit on a higher level, we are fairly sure that the popes have realized and will continue to realize that the triregnum has served its purpose and is no longer an adequate symbol for the office they inherit from Peter nor would it “look good” for them to be crowned.
 
Dr. Bombay:
We do solemnly declare and define that there can be only one “We” on the board and that “We” is me, errr, I mean, Us!

Don’t make Us open a can of anathema on ya, Kirk! :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
We regally take note of your pretensions and choose to be charitble, inviting you to share our use of what has always been OUR perogative. Put the can back on the shelf.
 
Servus Pio XII:
The Tiara predates the mitre. So, by your logic, since Jesus did not wear a mitre, neither should bishops? After all, it is obviously elevating him above Christ in some way (if you do not follow my logic, the mitre must be a form of crown because it evolved from the papal crown).
Click to expand...
Also, if you read the article in it’s entirety, both “hats” developed from an earlier “hat.” It doesn’t say that the mitre develped from the tiara.

Here’s the link for anyone who’s interested:

newadvent.org/cathen/10404a.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top