Should Pope Benedict start wearing the papal tiara?

[Miles_Mariae]

Worrying about the sensibilities of heretics has done nothing to advance the Church. The Papal tiara gives glory to God and is truly reflective of the immense dignity of the Petrine office.

Bring it back - along with the Sedia gestatoria (ie. that big awful portable throne that all those arrogant Popes, many of whom happen to be saints, used because they were so very lacking in humility).

Ha ha. Well done, sir, well done.

 

[Rickwood]

Worrying about the sensibilities of heretics has done nothing to advance the Church. The Papal tiara gives glory to God and is truly reflective of the immense dignity of the Petrine office.

Bring it back - along with the Sedia gestatoria (ie. that big awful portable throne that all those arrogant Popes, many of whom happen to be saints, used because they were so very lacking in humility).

How so? LOL!

 

[Tsuwano]

Good heavens, no! What in the world for? What would the message of such an action be? That the Church and her leaders are as vain or as powerful as the secular kingdoms of the world? One of the most powerful forces the Church has utilized in the past 60 years is it’s sense of humility and prayer in the face of worldly nations grasping for power or pushing one ideology over another. The Church of Jesus Christ is beyond that. Simply because something is traditional doesn’t mean it is good or that it expresses the theology of the Church adequately. The papal tiara is a symbol of triumphalism and is unfit for the man who walks in the shoes of the humble fisherman from Galilee.

 

[Nicholas82]

I think it looks a bit goofy myself. A crown is one thing but the size and shape of the papal tiara just makes it look like a giant top-heavy egg.

 

[Lepanto]

The papal tiara is a symbol of triumphalism and is unfit for the man who walks in the shoes of the humble fisherman from Galilee.

What exactly is wrong with legitimate triumphalism? Is there something wrong with believing that one’s beliefs are right? And if one didn’t believe that one’s beliefs are right, then why believe them in the first place?

Triumphalism is not about declaring one’s personal superiority, but about declaring the veracity of one’s beliefs. Triumphalism in its good, legitimate sense means to be convinced of the truth of one’s beliefs.

The opposite of triumphalism is indifferentism at best and defeatism at worst.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

The papal tiara is a symbol of triumphalism and is unfit for the man who walks in the shoes of the humble fisherman from Galilee.

You also mean the Son of God, the Creator of all the Universe?

Yeah, sure, why bother with that whole aspect.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Worrying about the sensibilities of heretics has done nothing to advance the Church. The Papal tiara gives glory to God and is truly reflective of the immense dignity of the Petrine office.

Bring it back - along with the Sedia gestatoria (ie. that big awful portable throne that all those arrogant Popes, many of whom happen to be saints, used because they were so very lacking in humility).

MEGA-dittos!

And, worrying about the sensibilities of heretics (material and formal!) has only sought to damage the Church, and drive Her members away from Her (please see: irreverent Novus Ordo Mass, and clap-trap/clap-happy Protestant influence on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

 

[Lepanto]

The Papal tiara has some associations with it that people (especially some westerners, mainly Protestants) might not like. I think it has negative connotations in a lot of peoples minds.

Westerners generally do not like any symbols of any authority.

It might be helpful to remember that some of the most influential converts to the Catholic church went through their periods of discernment after the Triple-T was set aside, I would name Scott Hahn and Tim Staples among others. In the early stages of discernment people are fragile, and can be discouraged by the simplest negative imagery.

There were no conversions before the tiara was dropped? Staples, et. al. would not have converted if the tiara was still used? I don’t think that they are that shallow. Seems to me that Catholic evangelization has done nothing but slow down in the past several decades.

Most Catholic people don’t seem to care much about the Triple Tiara.

My guess is that many Catholic people don’t care, don’t believe, or don’t know anything about the Real Presence, either. Poor catechesis should not drive our theologies or disciplines.

 

[Aramis]

What about all the Eastern Catholic bishops and the patriarchs who regularly wear crowns? (And who have been wearing crowns long before the advent of the secular state.) They were on great display at JPII’s funeral and at BXVI’s election.

Note that when His Grace Nicholas Elko was moved to a Roman diocese, instead of a Carpetho-Rusyn one, he switched from Crown to Miter.

The “Crowns” of the east are worn as Miters are in the west: the sign of a Bishop, Abbot, or Archpriest, a sign of rulership.

And, in modern days, the eastern crown is as outdated a symbol as the miter for civil rulership.

The Tiara, however, and the circlets of rank of the UK nobility, are not quite out of consciousness, and still indicates to many civil authority, even if no longer in truth being tied to the civil authority it once represented. Further, there are still several monarchies left in europe, whose monarchs, tho’ divorced from civil governance, still bear the crown.

 

[Rickwood]

MEGA-dittos!

And, worrying about the sensibilities of heretics (material and formal!) has only sought to damage the Church, and drive Her members away from Her (please see: irreverent Novus Ordo Mass, and clap-trap/clap-happy Protestant influence on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

You support the tiara by attacking the Mass. Nice logic.

 

[reff]

Pope John Paul I, in his short papacy replaced the tiara with the miter. It is a sign of simplicity and the role of the pope as Shepard.
Jesus told Peter to “feed my sheep.”

Yes I agree, i think the Holy Father shouldn’t return to wearing the tiara. It would be a sign of monarchy as if he were a king. He is the shepherd of the Church not a royal ruler of individuals.

 

[reff]

You also mean the Son of God, the Creator of all the Universe?

Yeah, sure, why bother with that whole aspect.

The Pope does not walk in the shoes of Christ, that would be a heresy to believe that he replaces Christ. Catholics do not believe that.

 

[Nicholas82]

Westerners generally do not like any symbols of any authority.

There were no conversions before the tiara was dropped? Staples, et. al. would not have converted if the tiara was still used? I don’t think that they are that shallow. Seems to me that Catholic evangelization has done nothing but slow down in the past several decades.

My guess is that many Catholic people don’t care, don’t believe, or don’t know anything about the Real Presence, either. Poor catechesis should not drive our theologies or disciplines.

To equate a fondness for the tiara to belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems to be stretching it quite a bit, and not at all a matter of catechesis.

 

[Tsuwano]

What exactly is wrong with legitimate triumphalism? Is there something wrong with believing that one’s beliefs are right? And if one didn’t believe that one’s beliefs are right, then why believe them in the first place?

Triumphalism is not about declaring one’s personal superiority, but about declaring the veracity of one’s beliefs. Triumphalism in its good, legitimate sense means to be convinced of the truth of one’s beliefs.

The opposite of triumphalism is indifferentism at best and defeatism at worst.

I disagree with your assertion that triumphalism is about declaring the veracity of one’s belief, unless by belief you mean tribe,ideology or nationalism. I believe the truth of our faith is best expressed with a sense of justice, humility and clarity. Triumphalism lacks all three of these qualities. Though our faith is true, we do not parade ourselves in front of Protestant churches or bang drums during Protestant services in the same way that some Protestants do when they celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. Neither should we misappropriate Muslim mosques to make into churches in the same way some Muslim peoples have done to Christian Churches. We do not destroy Hindu or Buddhist temples in a triumphant display of our truth, not because we do not have faith, but because our faith can not be expressed in such ways without losing some of the very truth we proclaim. A papal tiara does little more than obfuscate the truth we seek to express and distracts us from what should be our major focus; living the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[cyberwolf001]

You support the tiara by attacking the Mass. Nice logic.

Ummm no my friend he criticized irreverent Masses. Easy to make mistake however

 

[Tsuwano]

You also mean the Son of God, the Creator of all the Universe?

Yeah, sure, why bother with that whole aspect.

And what need does the Son of God, the creator of all the universe, have of such man - made objects such as a medieval tiara?

 

[JReducation]

I know that this is neither a very historical nor theological argument, nor is it meant to be. It’s just my reflection on the subject at hand.

This question brought to mind the book that I’m currently reading, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, a collection of private letters and memoirs. In one of her letters to Archbishop Perier of Calcutta she shares with him one of her locutions where Christ asks her to found an Indian congregation of sisters. As she attempts to explain to the Archbishop Christ’s exact words she tells him about the ministry of the sisters, but interestingly enough in the locution Christ had made two demands.

1. The religious community was to be a congregation of sisters, not an order of nuns.

For those who do not know, there is a canonical difference between a nun and a sister, even though we mistakenly often call sisters nuns. Mother Teresa was a nun while she was with the Loreto Community. But Christ did not want that of her or her followers. He wanted a sisterhood. Why? Mother never really explains.

The second request was equally interesting.

1. The sisters were not to wear a European habit. They were to dress as poor Indian women.

On this point Mother goes into greater details. It was Christ’s wish that the religious life of her sisters be one where he would be represented with great humility. In India, the traditional European habit was not a sign of humility. It was actually a sign of status associated with the oppressive political power that Europe had exercised over India. Her sisters were never to ascend above the poor, but to be beneath the poor. Those Indians who joined the congregation of Missionaries of Charity were to feel the pain of becoming poorer than they already were. And any European or American, who joined them, was also to take a step down in the social ladder.

I’m wondering if John Paul I also heard a similar voice from Christ. Maybe the time was right for the Pope to take a step down on the socio-political ladder. Maybe he should be a visible spiritual father, shepherd and bishop rather than a monarch. I can’t imagine that John Paul I would put aside the tiara on a whim. Nor can I imagine that John Paul II and Benedict XVI would continue to practice had it been just a whim. There has to be some spiritual, maybe even mystical motive for simplifying the Pope’s external appearance. The Church normally does not act on whims. It is very cautious about such things.

Someone as grounded in logic as is Benedict XVI would most definitely not bow to whims or fads. Maybe, like Mother Teresa who was instructed to be an Indian instead of a European, to be a sister instead of a nun, and to dress in the simple dress of the poorest Indian women for a reason that only Christ and Mother really understood, the same may have happened with the Pope and the tiara. Maybe there is a call here to simplify the image of the monarch, in order to make more visible the image of the spiritual father, shepherd and bishop.

I just thought it very interesting, because Mother had these locutions from Christ and during the research done for her beatification it has been revealed that the Archbishop of Calcutta and Pope Pius XII believed those locutions to be real. That’s why they jointly approved the change.

Maybe Christ is calling the Church to a more pastoral image and downplaying any image that can be negative. If Christ felt that the image of the European nun in India was a negative for the Indian people, could it be possible that he also feels that the image the Vatican monarch can be negative for modern man? The tiara is not a matter of dogma or morals, it can be dispensed with.

These are just random thoughts.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Jsmith17]

I say bring it back, at least for the coronation of the next Pope. Any fallicies about the Pope not being humble have obviously been dispelled by both Pope JP and Pope JP II, Its time for the tiara to return. If Benedict doesn’t bring it back, I hope he leaves instructions for his successor to be coronated and not just inagurated.

 

[Jsmith17]

I say bring it back, at least for the coronation of the next Pope. Any fallicies about the Pope not being humble have obviously been dispelled by both Pope JP and Pope JP II, Its time for the tiara to return. If Benedict doesn’t bring it back, I hope he leaves instructions for his successor to be coronated and not just inagurated.

 

[blue85]

Yes I agree, i think the Holy Father shouldn’t return to wearing the tiara. It would be a sign of monarchy as if he were a king. He is the shepherd of the Church not a royal ruler of individuals.

Um, last time I checked the pope was the last ruling absolute monarch in the Europe.

Now that said, I think the time to bring back the tiara would be at the start of the pontificate not mid-stream.