Should Benedict XVI start using a real crosier again?

[Lepanto]

Instead of a crosier, B16 uses the same crucifix that JP2 did. (I think this is a JP2 innovation.)

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix. Obviously the crucifix is the more important symbol, but the crosier has special significance to the shepherds of the Church’s flocks.

Even today, bishops around the world still use the crosier, and since the pope is the bishop of Rome, why shouldn’t he also use a crosier? Why should he be any different in this regard? Isn’t the pope the bishop par excellance? And since B16 has brought many more traditional vestments back into use, shouldn’t a traditional crosier be used again?

 

[benedictgal]

Instead of a crosier, B16 uses the same crucifix that JP2 did. (I think this is a JP2 innovation.)

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix. Obviously the crucifix is the more important symbol, but the crosier has special significance to the shepherds of the Church’s flocks.

Even today, bishops around the world still use the crosier, and since the pope is the bishop of Rome, why shouldn’t he also use a crosier? Why should he be any different in this regard? Isn’t the pope the bishop par excellance? And since B16 has brought many more traditional vestments back into use, shouldn’t a traditional crosier be used again?

The crossier that Pope Benedict XVI uses is an “heirloom”, if you will, from Pope Paul VI. He was the one who began the practice of using this particular staff. I saw some really beautiful papal crosiers when the Vatican exhibit made its way to San Antonio. My dad and I were fascinated by the many beautiful treasures. Now, the Pope’s crosier was much more elaborate than the one for bishops. Perhaps the crucifix as a crosier is a sign that the Holy Father, as Christ’s vicar on earth, is also called, in a special way to share in the Lord’s sufferings. The burden of being shepherd to over 1 billion Catholics is a cross in and of itself. I see Benedict’s use of this particular crosier as his visible and constant acceptance of the cross he must bear as our Supreme Pontiff.

 

[I_Believe]

I voted no. I feel he can carry what he wants. It’s a personal choice.

Now, if he were to ask my opinion, I’d suggest he carry a Louisville Slugger, for reasons I dare not mention.

Perhaps he’ll surprise us on the day he prays the TLM

 

[Asperges_Me]

Yes, the more 60’s innovations we get rid of the better. Why does it seem like the church is stuck in a particular era with all of the abstract, defrormed, and often grotesque art. The “bent cross” sure looks like it falls in one of those categories.

Heck, even most of the baseball stadiums built during that era have been declared ugly and torn down. What replaced them were more traditional and classic ball park designs.

I say bring back the older crosiers.

 

[AJV]

Instead of a crosier, B16 uses the same crucifix that JP2 did. (I think this is a JP2 innovation.)

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix. Obviously the crucifix is the more important symbol, but the crosier has special significance to the shepherds of the Church’s flocks.

Even today, bishops around the world still use the crosier, and since the pope is the bishop of Rome, why shouldn’t he also use a crosier? Why should he be any different in this regard? Isn’t the pope the bishop par excellance? And since B16 has brought many more traditional vestments back into use, shouldn’t a traditional crosier be used again?

The Pope has not used a crosier when officiating solemnly for centuries. The innovation on the part of Paul VI consisted in having a ‘pastoral staff’ for regular use in the first place

 

[AJV]

Instead of a crosier, B16 uses the same crucifix that JP2 did. (I think this is a JP2 innovation.)

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix. Obviously the crucifix is the more important symbol, but the crosier has special significance to the shepherds of the Church’s flocks.

Even today, bishops around the world still use the crosier, and since the pope is the bishop of Rome, why shouldn’t he also use a crosier? Why should he be any different in this regard? Isn’t the pope the bishop par excellance? And since B16 has brought many more traditional vestments back into use, shouldn’t a traditional crosier be used again?

The Pope has not usually used a crosier when officiating solemnly for centuries, (aside from a very few ceremonies *, but never regularly) therefore, such a thing would not be traditional. The innovation on the part of Paul VI consisted in having a ‘pastoral staff’ for regular use in the first place.

*Principally 3 occasions: ordination of bishops and priests, and dedication of a church. For these occasions, it was in the form of a Cross (sans Corpus)

 

[puzzleannie]

Instead of a crosier, B16 uses the same crucifix that JP2 did. (I think this is a JP2 innovation.)

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix. Obviously the crucifix is the more important symbol, but the crosier has special significance to the shepherds of the Church’s flocks.
?

you have a problem with a crucifix rather than a curved top? interesting where you could come up with this gripe. do you have historical documentation that all croziers throughout history had the curved top? did you ever see a traditional shepherd’s staff, from which the symbolism of the crozier derives? think they are made of metal and gold plated, with that ornate curve? think a plain wooden staff would not carry the same symbolism?

critics of this pope and of his prececessor have come up with a lot of mean-spirited petty gripes, but this is a new one.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

you have a problem with a crucifix rather than a curved top? interesting where you could come up with this gripe. do you have historical documentation that all croziers throughout history had the curved top? did you ever see a traditional shepherd’s staff, from which the symbolism of the crozier derives? think they are made of metal and gold plated, with that ornate curve? think a plain wooden staff would not carry the same symbolism?

critics of this pope and of his prececessor have come up with a lot of mean-spirited petty gripes, but this is a new one.

Good questions puzzleannie!

The OP shows that he only knows of the western Church as eastern Bishops do not have croziers like the western Bishops do.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Yeah, but Annie surely you recall the “horror” when Paul VI began carrying that crucifix. Our beloved Bishop Ott here carried a wooden crozier that his two sucessors have chosen to carry. This is the same bishop who chose to be buried in a plain cypress coffin. A simple wooden staff would work as well methinks.

 

[Sure]

Yes, the more 60’s innovations we get rid of the better. Why does it seem like the church is stuck in a particular era with all of the abstract, defrormed, and often grotesque art. The “bent cross” sure looks like it falls in one of those categories.

Heck, even most of the baseball stadiums built during that era have been declared ugly and torn down. What replaced them were more traditional and classic ball park designs.

I say bring back the older crosiers.

Just so you are aware that cross is not some “modern art-piece” it is based on the sketch of Christ crucified by St. John of The Cross. He drew it sometime between 1574 and 1577.

View attachment 2138

 

[AJV]

Yeah, but Annie surely you recall the “horror” when Paul VI began carrying that crucifix. Our beloved Bishop Ott here carried a wooden crozier that his two sucessors have chosen to carry. This is the same bishop who chose to be buried in a plain cypress coffin. A simple wooden staff would work as well methinks.

But brotherhrolf, the fact is that it wouldn’t be traditional for the Pope to carry a shepherd’s crook crozier because traditionally Popes haven’t used crosiers. The only crosier the Pope has used, and relatively sparingly is one with a Cross on it.

Therefore, if a traditional usage is wished, then it would be that the Pope does not carry a crosier for most functions.

puzzleannie:

critics of this pope and of his prececessor have come up with a lot of mean-spirited petty gripes, but this is a new one.

I don’t think he intentionally meant to be mean spirited. I think he was just expressing a preference for a different usage

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The Pope has not usually used a crosier when officiating solemnly for centuries, (aside from a very few ceremonies *, but never regularly) therefore, such a thing would not be traditional. The innovation on the part of Paul VI consisted in having a ‘pastoral staff’ for regular use in the first place.

*Principally 3 occasions: ordination of bishops and priests, and dedication of a church. For these occasions, it was in the form of a Cross (sans Corpus)

Thanks for having the knowledge to assert what I was only intuiting, that a crozier is not, in fact, traditional for the popes. Maybe you should design a “myth-busting” thread in which all sorts of things we might expect to be the traditional practice turn out to be incorrect. I would find that incredibly interesting.

 

[AJV]

Yeah, but Annie surely you recall the “horror” when Paul VI began carrying that crucifix. Our beloved Bishop Ott here carried a wooden crozier that his two sucessors have chosen to carry. This is the same bishop who chose to be buried in a plain cypress coffin. A simple wooden staff would work as well methinks.

But brotherhrolf, the fact is that it wouldn’t be traditional for the Pope to carry a shepherd’s crook crozier because traditionally Popes haven’t used crosiers. The only crosier the Pope has used, and relatively sparingly is one with a Cross on it.

Therefore, if a traditional usage is wished, then it would be that the Pope does not carry a crosier for most functions.

The explanations of why the Pope doesn’t use the staff used to be treated in ceremonial works with either a historical explanation ( first given by Innocent III) or ones such as the curved top representing a restricted jurisdiction (Summa Theologica ) or some slightly more imaginative ones. Take Durandus (13th century):

But the Bishop of Rome does not use the Pastoral Staff, partly for a historical, and in part for a mystical reason. The historical reason is as follows. The Blessed Apostle Peter sent Martial his disciple (whom the Lord made to be His follower when He said, Unless you become as this little child you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven) with certain others to preach unto the Germans.

[Edited by Moderator]

But on the other hand, Innocent III, Pope, wrote in the Speculum Ecclesiae that Blessed Peter sent his Staff unto Eucherius, first Bishop of Treves, whom he appointed, together with Valerius and Maternus, to preach the Gospel unto the Teutonic people ; and to him Maternus succeeded as Bishop, who had been raised up from death by Peter s Staff.

[Edited by Moderator]

But the mystical reason is this, that the drawing-in of wanderers, as symbolised by the crookedness of the top of the Staff, is not needed in the case of the Bishop of Rome ; for that none can altogether turn away from him. Moreover the Staff is a type of that constraining power, which the other Bishops receive at the hands of men, and therefore they receive and hold their Staves from those set over them. But the Pope, because he receives his power from God alone, does not have the Staff.

puzzleannie:

critics of this pope and of his prececessor have come up with a lot of mean-spirited petty gripes, but this is a new one.

I don’t think he intentionally meant to be mean spirited. I think he was just expressing a preference for a different usage

 

[ChaliceMaster]

Yes, the more 60’s innovations we get rid of the better. Why does it seem like the church is stuck in a particular era with all of the abstract, defrormed, and often grotesque art. The “bent cross” sure looks like it falls in one of those categories.

Heck, even most of the baseball stadiums built during that era have been declared ugly and torn down. What replaced them were more traditional and classic ball park designs.

I say bring back the older crosiers.

Is this parody?

Sorry I can’t wait for an answer. I gotta head out to a meeting at Dodger Stadium – gorgeous and built in 1962…

 

[brotherhrolf]

But brotherhrolf, the fact is that it wouldn’t be traditional for the Pope to carry a shepherd’s crook crozier because traditionally Popes haven’t used crosiers. The only crosier the Pope has used, and relatively sparingly is one with a Cross on it.

I am wracking my brain trying to remember from those old black and white images on TV or at the movies when I was a kid. I remember seeing John XXIII opening the Second Vatican Council wearing the tiara and being carried on the sedes gestatoria. I also seem to remember Pius XII or John XXIII carrying the triple cross papal staff.

I DO, however, remember the fuss when Paul VI started the use of the current papal cross.

 

[bpbasilphx]

But think about it: for many centuries, the crosier was the universal symbol of episcopal authority in the West, not the crucifix.

Not true.

Once upon a time, Western bishops used a cross-topped staff, analagous to the TAU cross that Byzantine bishops carried before the ladies of the altar guild got hold of it.

Exception: The pope. NO POPE, as Bishop of Rome, EVER carried a crozier. If elected to the papacy from another see, he laid the crozier aside.

Paul VI chose this type of pastoral staff (NOT crozier) to emphize his role as the chief pastor of the church.

 

[brotherhrolf]

It is only within my lifetime that the Holy Father has ventured from Rome - Paul VI, if I am not mistaken, was the first. I remember him going to NYC. Good Bishop, it would seem that you are right, the only references I could find were toward a triple cross staff.

 

[TMGallyon85]

On one note, I have seen pictures Of Leo XIII waving at a camera holding a Traditional coiled crosier and have seen pictures of it on display. On another note, I do happen to agree with some folks that maybe Pope benedict could keep the “pastoral staff” but change the styling of the crucifix to step away from the 1960’s look. Or have another staff made that he could carry that looks like the 3 barred cross seen being carried in statues of previous popes. Somebody made mention about bishops always carrying coiled crosiers but I do remember seeing a statue of Saint Lawrence O’toole who was Bishop of Dublin carrying a cross topped crosier.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

You guys want this one, right?

 

[Pious_Mat]

Does it really matter exactly what the crosier looks like as long as it is aesthetically pleasing, adds to a generally Holy image, and has the same general design as is traditional? (i.e., long staff-like thingy that the Pope walks with.)

The evolution of vestments and accessories changes over time, and frankly, as long as they take the same shape and are of aesthetic value, we shouldn’t care. Think about the chasuble–the original chasubles, and the general style used right up until the Renaissance, were gothic in style, while some of the most traditional people out there prefer the Roman chasuble.

Also, it ought to be mentioned that the Pope is not subject to normal rules regarding vestments and clericals. Pope Benedict breaks about a half dozen rules on clerical garb set down by Pope Paul VI on an almost weekly basis, e.g., the double sleeves he wears every day. As Pope, his personal practises on such matters are not something we should be criticizing.

Also consider the great improvement in vesture overall in Rome since he ascended to the Chair of Peter, and it’s not even been three years yet.