The Papal Tiara: Yes or No?

[Denise1957]

The Papal Tiara is a good reminder that the pope has the equivalency of a king, and so he is, as such, a monarch. He vicariously possesses the authority of Christ. The pope stands as the visible vicar and visible head of the Church, and possesses all powers as given by Christ to Peter.

 

[malphono]

I’m a big fan of the sedia gestatoria, and less so of the tiara, but in either case, it’s really not a matter of “bringing them back” since neither was actually suppressed. Both could, in theory, reappear tomorrow.

Paul VI effectively abandoned his tiara (which, considering that it was a gift of the people of Milan where he had been Archbishop, I find kind of rude but never mind that), but continued to use the sedia. PP John-Paul I also used the sedia, and there was, as I recall, some talk of the tiara at that time too, but John-Paul I ultimately decided against it. From what I’ve heard, the same seems to have been true of PP Benedict XVI. There has also been some talk in the past few years of reviving the use of the sedia, but apparently security concerns have played their part and, so far, it hasn’t happened.

 

[MarianD]

For being a catechumen, you apparently have better insight into the situation than generations of popes ever did.

Isn’t the catechumenate about learning from the Church, not teaching the Church how things ought to be done?

All meant of course in love and respect.

I’m not a Catechumenate. I’m a Candidate. Also, I know a lot about Church customs, the tradition, and the culture of the past Popes. I studied Catholicism before deciding to convert you know.

Also, being a Candidate is about learning Church doctrines and dogmas and why they are believed, not about the past traditions for Popes.

I still say the tiara and the sedia gestatoria is honoring a man too much. He’s not a saint…yet.

 

[paddy22]

I say yes to restoring the use of both. As has been said, it is about honoring the office of the papacy and giving it the respect and dignity the office deserves. It isn’t honoring the man persay, but his position as Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ (Christ, who is King), His representative on earth. Of course the media and much of the world would have a field day, but how much do they respect the Church and the Pope at the present time, when neither are in use? I’d say what they (media, secular world) think is irrelevant.

 

[Pregustator]

I’m torn on this, in a way. I actually like the tiara and find it magnificent to behold, on the one hand. On the other, it has been so long abandoned, now, that to suddenly restore it might cause confusion amongst a generation of Catholics that has never seen it worn by a pope. Clearly, the last three popes have seen the value in Paul VI’s abandonment of, not only the tiara, but other of the old papal trappings that come, not from his role as Peter’s successor, but as a temporal monarch.

I think it has to be recognized that the sight of a thrice-crowned Bishop of Rome carried aloft on a portable throne surrounded by ostrich feathers, courtiers, and armed guards reminds one more of an Egyptian pharaoh than it does Peter. Biographers of St. Pius X tell us that he detested all of those imperial trappings and felt embarrassed by them. He probably would have applauded Paul VI’s successors for setting much of those things aside.

For those who assert that the tiara was rich in theological symbolism because of its three crowns, it has to be remembered that that symbolism is quite contrived. The tiara originally did not have three crowns; it was just a conical headdress unique to the Bishop of Rome. In time a jeweled circlet was added to the base, then another, finally a third. So if the three crowns represented something theological, what about when it only had two crowns? Or just one?

The modern popes have seen fit to abandon the tiara with good reason, I think. Times do change and expectations change with them. Pope Benedict XVI has gone so far as to eliminate the tiara from his coat of arms, replacing it with a mitre. I think we can safely assume that it has been relegated to the past, having fallen into desuetude for three pontificates, now.

If it were to be restored, however, I would say that it might be best to rethink the tiara, altogether, and reintroduce it, not as a jeweled triple crown worthy of an emperor, but as a simplified ecclesiastical headdress, akin to a mitre. I can conceive of a tiara covered in, say, white silk brocade, like a miter, but still conical in shape, and with three orphrey bandings encircling it, rather than three jeweled crowns. Were something like that to be introduced, one could have a unique papal headdress that evokes papal tradition, but according to a more ecclesiastical fashion that does not speak, in any way, of regal, temporal glory. A “post-Vatican II Era” tiara, as it were.

That might be a nice idea, actually

 

[malphono]

If it were to be restored, however, I would say that it might be best to rethink the tiara, altogether, and reintroduce it, not as a jeweled triple crown worthy of an emperor, but as a simplified ecclesiastical headdress, akin to a mitre. I can conceive of a tiara covered in, say, white silk brocade, like a miter, but still conical in shape, and with three orphrey bandings encircling it, rather than three jeweled crowns. Were something like that to be introduced, one could have a unique papal headdress that evokes papal tradition, but in a more ecclesiastical fashion that does not speak, in any way, of regal, temporal glory.

Best to keep in mind that while it was unique to the Bishop of Rome, the tiara was never worn liturgically. Reviving its use but giving it some sort of pseudo-liturgical trappings now strikes me as kind of silly. I’d rather it not be used at all than to come up with yet another innovation.

 

[Pregustator]

Best to keep in mind that while it was unique to the Bishop of Rome, the tiara was never worn liturgically. Reviving its use but giving it some sort of pseudo-liturgical trappings now strikes me as kind of silly. I’d rather it not be used at all than to come up with yet another innovation.

I don’t think I advocated giving it a liturgical use, only reforming it in such a way that it appears more as an ecclesiastical object than a temporal one. I imagine such a “reformed” tiara rolleyes would be worn as the old type was: at papal coronations/investitures and on the anniversary of the same.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think I advocated giving it a liturgical use, only reforming it in such a way that it appears more as an ecclesiastical object than a temporal one. I imagine such a “reformed” tiara rolleyes would be worn as the old type was: at papal coronations/investitures and on the anniversary of the same.

Understood, but “reforming” it to make it appear more “ecclesiastical” is really the same thing since it never was particularly “ecclesiastical” in the first place.

 

[paddy22]

Pregustator - why are you hung up on the temporal issue? The pope does have temporal power - he is an absolute monarch.

 

[Pregustator]

Understood, but “reforming” it to make it appear more “ecclesiastical” is really the same thing since it never was particularly “ecclesiastical” in the first place.

Well, that seems to be the thrust of the modern reform of things with regard to the papacy: taking the pope’s temporal glories and either giving them a more ecclesiastical character, or eliminating them outright when that cannot be done.

In the case of the tiara, the latter course was followed. I only mean to suggest that there could be a middle way that might satisfy both the need to reform and the desire to preserve. I don’t imagine that the tiara will ever be reintroduced, but I never imagined that the camauro, the mantum, and the gilded papal thrones of state would be reintroduced, either.

Should a future pope want to reintroduce the tiara, I’m only saying that it could be reintroduced as a distinctly ecclesiastical thing. In that way, those who long for its return could rejoice, and those who disliked it for its earthly grandeur would not have cause to take offense.

 

[Pregustator]

Pregustator - why are you hung up on the temporal issue? The pope does have temporal power - he is an absolute monarch.

Well, sure he is, and I do understand that, but the perception of the papacy has changed so drastically since the last time the triple crown was worn by a pope, that to simply and suddenly reintroduce the tiara in it’s present form would likely be quite jarring to most Christians, who would not be familiar with it or understand it.

I think if the object were reinvented as a papal headdress that no longer, by its appearance, connotes kingship, but simply papal authority in a way that better reflects our current perception of the papacy, it could both preserve a lovely tradition and avoid raising too many eyebrows.

 

[malphono]

Well, that seems to be the thrust of the modern reform things with regard to the papacy: taking the pope’s temporal glories and either giving them a more ecclesiastical character, or eliminating them outright when that cannot be done.

In the case of the tiara, the latter course was followed. I only mean to suggest that there could be a middle way that might satisfy both the need to reform and the desire to preserve. I don’t imagine that the tiara will ever be reintroduced, but I never imagined that the camauro, the mantum, and the gilded papal thrones of state would be reintroduced, either.

Should a future pope want to reintroduce the tiara, I’m only saying that it could be reintroduced as a distinctly ecclesiastical thing. In that way, those who long for its return could rejoice, and those who disliked it for its earthly grandeur would not have cause to take offense.

If the thing had any “ecclesiastical” value in and of itself I might be willing to agree. But of course it doesn’t.

Perhaps the “middle ground” would be in adopting a simple tiara of the traditional type, something along the lines of the one Paul VI discarded (and, as I said in an earlier post, rudely so, considering its provenance). It wasn’t particularly “flashy” or particularly “royal” in appearance, and while it wasn’t exactly my taste (crowns, in general, are not, nor are mitres for that matter, but I digress), it was still quite apropos for the rare occasions that it was used.

 

[paddy22]

Well, sure he is, and I do understand that, but the perception of the papacy has changed so drastically since the last time the triple crown was worn by a pope, that to simply and suddenly reintroduce the tiara in it’s present form would likely be quite jarring to most Christians, who would not be familiar with it or understand it.

I think if the object were reinvented as a papal headdress that no longer, by its appearance, connotes kingship, but simply papal authority in a way that better reflects our current perception of the papacy, it could both preserve a lovely tradition and avoid raising too many eyebrows.

Why should we be so concerned with raising eyebrows? Maybe I’m just not understanding why you think the tiara is so offensive to people.

 

[Pregustator]

Why should we be so concerned with raising eyebrows? Maybe I’m just not understanding why you think the tiara is so offensive to people.

Well, you and I, perhaps, do not need to be too concerned with raising eyebrows, but with popes, the expectations are greater. They have to be pastorally sensitive to the present needs and expectations of the Christian faithful when it comes to such things, and by and large they are and have been.

Benedict XVI has been a little daring in this regard. When he donned the camauro at Christmas a few years ago, some people went ballistic over it. Others were delighted. Most, however, were confused and amused, thinking that he was wearing a Santa hat! He hasn’t worn it again since.

I think when the idea of a pope wearing a regal crown became more or less untenable, insofar as the idea seemed to contradict the spirit of the contemporary papacy, Paul VI had the pastoral sensitivity to put it aside, and his successors had the pastoral sensitivity not to pick it back up. They seemed to sense that it clashed a bit with today’s renewed emphasis on the pope’s pastoral role, and the minimization of the papacy’s attachment to the imperial glories of yore.

There was a time when the pope was not merely head of state of the Papal State, but also considered as a sort of replacement for the Western emperor. He was “father of kings and princes”. Monarchs deferred to him. Lines of demarcation were drawn by him. But this is not the case today. Today, the papacy focuses on its role as universal shepherd of the Christian Church, and not upon worldly magnificence. So the tiara in its present form, as I say, tends to clash with the modern concept of the papacy.

 

[Pregustator]

As to the sedia gestatoria, that can stay in the attic, I think. To carry Peter’s successor around on a portable throne chair like a pharoah was just way over the top, I think, and that custom, I hope, will forever…take a seat.

 

[agent_grey]

I really don’t think that either of these is really appropriate for the Pope. Sure, they’re symbols of his authority…but that’s really all. Could you imagine how much money could be donated to help the needy if the church didn’t spend it on things like thrones? That’s just my opinion.

Reminds me of a story in the Gospel. Can’t remember what it was but it had something to do with a woman that bought perfume for Jesus.

 

[MarkThompson]

As to the sedia gestatoria, that can stay in the attic, I think. To carry Peter’s successor around on a portable throne chair like a pharoah was just way over the top, I think, and that custom, I hope, will forever…take a seat.

I dunno, I kind of like the sedia. But failing that, I’d at least like to see guys on Vespas flanking the Popemobile holding the flabella.

 

[Domnall]

Reminds me of a story in the Gospel. Can’t remember what it was but it had something to do with a woman that bought perfume for Jesus.

Well, I think that’s the third reference to that story that has been used in this thread…

I really don’t want to argue with anyone on this. I believe that it is too ostentatious to be worn by a pope. Others, however may disagree with me. So, agreeing to disagree is the best option.

But as far as I’m concerned, if the absence of tiara was good enough for JPII and For Benedict XVI, its good enough for me.

 

[LoyalViews]

Well, sure he is, and I do understand that, but the perception of the papacy has changed so drastically since the last time the triple crown was worn by a pope, that to simply and suddenly reintroduce the tiara in it’s present form would likely be quite jarring to most Christians, who would not be familiar with it or understand it.

I think if the object were reinvented as a papal headdress that no longer, by its appearance, connotes kingship, but simply papal authority in a way that better reflects our current perception of the papacy, it could both preserve a lovely tradition and avoid raising too many eyebrows.

“perception” and what the Papacy actually is, are two different things. Oft times, the perception of the Papacy by non-Catholic, liberal Catholic, and non-Christian anti-Catholics (such as the media, and the government) is completely and utterly incorrect, while what the Papacy really is (head of God’s church, successor of the prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, Vicar of Christ, God’s representative on Earth, head of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, true Church!) is often disputed as “popular belief” and “Catholic myth”.
God Bless! :byzsoc:

 

[MarianD]

Today, the papacy focuses on its role as universal shepherd of the Christian Church, and not upon worldly magnificence. So the tiara in its present form, as I say, tends to clash with the modern concept of the papacy.

I agree completely with your post (just had to shorten it so I wouldn’t be quoting too much).

I’d go even farther and say that the Papacy never was supposed to be a position of King of Kings. Many popes in the past got a little too power hungry I’d say. It was supposed to be, is, and will be until Christ’s return a position of Spiritual Shepherd and High Priest. Political matters aren’t the Church’s focus point, and it isn’t supposed to be. So why should the Pope act as if he is a political king instead of the King’s (Christ’s) representative?

Popes from long ago saw how the Papacy was becoming too king-like, so they changed it. The Tiara was one of the last vestiges of that king-like Papacy, so it was disposed of. This seems to be the viewpoint of the Popes since Pope Paul VI, so what I’m saying can’t be ultra-liberal.