The Pope Is Truly Living In A Different Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryan29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ryan29

Guest
When I was watching the news media with the smiling Pope in America made you smile with him, until I saw him in the “Pope Mobile”. I got to thinking about how it looks as a symbol of Catholism all over the world is smiling inside five feet of bulletproof plexi-glass. I understand why he must do that because of assassination, but the Popes of old were they also apprehensive about dying? I can’t imagine a Pope from the 1600’s that would shy away from being with the people because there could be a threat. I see it that it would show courage to ride without such a protective vehicle and had faith that he would be alright instead of relying on technology to put his faith into. What does this display say about this man and his belief in the faith. Nothing good as I see it. :twocents:

If you think I am offbase for having this observation, then ask yourself would others in history that could have avoided dying changed their plans or would they have relied on their faith to protect them from potential or percieved harm?

What happened to the glory and heroism of Christian martyrs? :highprayer:

Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Saint Andrew, St. Peter’s brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Saint Jude was crucified.
Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs

It is not out of the question to ask should these brave souls (or others in the link provided) have chosen a different path that prevented them from dying? How is this time any different from the ones of the Apostles? Aren’t Catholics still being persucuted even in America in the media? Catholics don’t hide from a comparasion that Bill Maher said about “The Pope being a Nazi”, but they did compromise on his mode for transportation? I don’t understand the logic of this at all and I hope someone can rectify this for me. :knight1:
 
If you recall in the Gospels, even Jesus had to sneak away from the crowds in Jerusalem at times, even when He knew that there were some after Him, for “his hour had not come yet” - IOW, He wasn’t done proclaiming His message.
 
The “popemobile” came into existence (as I recall) after the Vatican assassination attempt in St. Peter’s Square on the life of Pope John Paul II. I find it intriguing that this pope is riding on this U.S. trip more in a limo than the popemobile, partly because I recall so well John Paul II in Chicago before there ever was a popemobile. (The sight of him standing and waving through the roof of the limosene just blocks from my house is something I will always remember.)

It is also interesting that this pope (though he uses the mobile) doesn’t always stay safely ensconsed behind the plexiglass when in Rome.

But I hear what you are saying. There is something to the image of a public Catholicism which is seen only from behind a safety net that keeps it boxed in an less vulnerable to attack through more direct human contact.

Still, there is something to be said for the pope making himself at least visible. John Paul II, more so, would ride in such a vehicle often through areas where no one was around to see him just so that anyone who wanted to watch and wave could do so when he reached the crowds. It is in some sense an expedient development, I think. Further, at times the pope seems to go out of his way to do what he wills, anyway. Again, I recall John Paul in Baltimore where he was supposed to exit a church by the back door. Instead, he chose to stroll through the nave, exit out front, and take a walk around the block.
 
There is a major difference between being careful and being stupid and a thin line seperates them.

On EWTN last night they were actually quite concerned that the Pope had even let down the windows of the Popemobile.

Ok rewind back to May 13th 1981. Go figure!
 
If I recall righty Pope Julius II used to wear armour. I doubt he was the only Pope to do so. 🤷
 
There is a difference between matyrdom and stupidity. Once you see the differences you will see that it would be stupid for him to go around without protection.
 
Ryan29 said:
When I was watching the news media with the smiling Pope in America made you smile with him, until I saw him in the “Pope Mobile”. I got to thinking about how it looks as a symbol of Catholism all over the world is smiling inside five feet of bulletproof plexi-glass. I understand why he must do that because of assassination, but the Popes of old were they also apprehensive about dying? I can’t imagine a Pope from the 1600’s that would shy away from being with the people because there could be a threat. I see it that it would show courage to ride without such a protective vehicle and had faith that he would be alright instead of relying on technology to put his faith into. What does this display say about this man and his belief in the faith. Nothing good as I see it. :twocents: :
Click to expand...
Ever see the silly uniforms the Swiss Guards wear? The reason they are dressed in such goofy outfits and stand around with halbeards and wear even sillier looking helmets is they go back many centuries. Popes were always protected not only by bullet prooof glass or other types of armor, but castles and armies.

John Paul II was shot riding in an open air convertible. Are you old enough to remember the images of that day? Having one pope shot by a Muslim lunatic is not enough for you. Maybe he should fire all the Swiss Guards and get rid of the Vatican security systems.
 
There’s certainly a difference between martyrdom and just plain being murdered. The former has at least a reason for dying, and the killer (or killers) have reason behind their actions. The latter is senseless, and does not have any logic or motive to it (most of the time). It’s the latter that’s being prevented. I have no doubt the Pope will gladly submit to martyrdom if need be for the Faith, but I am sure he (as well as anyone) wouldn’t want to die for something senseless.
 
The host country also has some right to make arrangements for his security. Nobody wants something terrible to happen on their watch. I’m sure the US government wants him to take basic measures or the Secret Service’s job would be impossible.

It’s part of being a good guest to accomodate his host, and to help quiet any fears they might have that something bad will happen to their guest “while he’s at our house.” I rememer hearing about the security arrangements for his Turkey visit. They seemed much stricter, and it was the Turkish government’s idea.
 
Even Paul let himself out in a basket when he feared he was being threatened. The Holy Family stayed in Egypt. The Pope stays in the popemobile, I think it is called prudence.
 
The Pope is a head of state, not simply a priest living in difficult times as was the case with many martyrs. He has to have adequate protection. We shouldn’t seek martyrdom, but accept it if it has to come.
 
RobinSebas said:
Even Paul let himself out in a basket when he feared he was being threatened. The Holy Family stayed in Egypt. The Pope stays in the popemobile, I think it is called prudence.
Click to expand...
They also didn’t have high powered rifles and handguns in the 1600’s
 
I could be wrong about this, but will think the following until someone proves it wrong.

My belief is that the “popemobile” is the confection of those who wish to protect the Pope, not of the Pope himself. If I had the power to do it, I would probably have made it even stronger than it is, and made visibility even more secondary. I would “screen” the crowds as well.

Who here, if charged with the responsibility, would send the Pope out into crowds of people when would-be assassins of all sorts are out there and everyone knows they are?
 
The Pope is not responsible for other peoples actions, we all have free will. Why would he or the people who wish to ptotect him leave him open to the actions or free will of those who could wish to harm him?. My question is why would anyone object to him using The Pope Mobile?:confused:
 
Ryan29 said:
When I was watching the news media with the smiling Pope in America made you smile with him, until I saw him in the “Pope Mobile”. I got to thinking about how it looks as a symbol of Catholism all over the world is smiling inside five feet of bulletproof plexi-glass. I understand why he must do that because of assassination, but the Popes of old were they also apprehensive about dying? I can’t imagine a Pope from the 1600’s that would shy away from being with the people because there could be a threat. I see it that it would show courage to ride without such a protective vehicle and had faith that he would be alright instead of relying on technology to put his faith into. What does this display say about this man and his belief in the faith. Nothing good as I see it. :twocents:
Click to expand...
I do see your point abnd have had this thought as well. It is sad to see.
Of course your historical reference would depend on the individual Pontiff. Benedict is quite different from his predecessor, more private, so the 'Popemobile" is perhaps more appropriate to him, However I’m sure it was a horrible niusance to to JPII even after the assasination attempt.
The problem for the Pope, or any such figure, is that there are people charged with protecting them. These people must be allowed to do their jobs so the “figure” becomes a prisoner, in a sense, to the competing need for protection and exposition.
If you think I am offbase for having this observation, then ask yourself would others in history that could have avoided dying changed their plans or would they have relied on their faith to protect them from potential or percieved harm?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are off base, but today’s world is certainly different from the past. Just look at the relative measures taken for ANY public figure.
What happened to the glory and heroism of Christian martyrs? :highprayer:
Click to expand...
Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Saint Andrew, St. Peter’s brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Saint Jude was crucified.
Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs
Click to expand...
Their heroism and Faith still stand as beacons.
Also please bear in mind that the Popes have had protection for a great many years. The fancy Swiss Guard is a remnent of that protection from a bygone era.
It is not out of the question to ask should these brave souls (or others in the link provided) have chosen a different path that prevented them from dying? How is this time any different from the ones of the Apostles? Aren’t Catholics still being persucuted even in America in the media? Catholics don’t hide from a comparasion that Bill Maher said about “The Pope being a Nazi”, but they did compromise on his mode for transportation? I don’t understand the logic of this at all and I hope someone can rectify this for me. :knight1:
Click to expand...
Well one difference between the time of the apostles and now would be that back then the Pope was not a world leader who speaks for over a billion souls in every country around the world. Back then, the Pope could walk out into the streets or along the roads of the Roman Empire without even being noticed, let alone being mobbed by thousands and pursued by media. The only time that the Pope in the days of the apostles was at real risk, was when he was preaching in the synagoges.

I say again, that I see your point, and it is sad. I’m sure very Catholic wishes these measures weren’t necessary. But then I’m sure that every American wishes that the President could also walk around freely instead of having to be protected from the nuts out there.
 
Actually, I believe it is the other way round - although do not take my word for it, because I am not a historian - but popes ages ago used to be isolated from people, they had much more power, and I do not think they mingled with ordinary people just like John Paul II did. It started with John XXIII, who abandoned some of the stiff protocol.
Another thing is - you are thinking that pope should not be so afraid of losing his life - but the other thing is that if such a thing happened, it would be a major embarrasment for that country, so he needs to be careful, not only for his own sake.
 
Another point…How would the Church be lead b/c it would be safe to assume that there is such a hatred for the position of pope that every time one was elected, soon he’d be assassinated. There are enough crazies out there to cause this type of chaos
 
gmarie21 said:
Another point…How would the Church be lead b/c it would be safe to assume that there is such a hatred for the position of pope that every time one was elected, soon he’d be assassinated. There are enough crazies out there to cause this type of chaos
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
The way I see it is that it is an act of charity. If he walked amongst the crowds, a large group of bodyguards would feel obligated to be right there, constantly vigilant, questioning those who looked shady… Basically the way the Secret Service acts at political appearances. To not use the popemobile would result in OTHER people placing THEIR lives in danger solely to reduce the appearance of hiding.

I say kudos to the pope for choosing reality over appearance.
 
There weren’t sniper rifles in the 1600’s.

By the pope having a popemobile, he is actually acknowledging that these are different times.

So I would say:
The Pope Is Truly Living In A Different Time
Click to expand...
… than you. He’s in the twenty first century and your in the 1600’s.

I say if you value your pope and what he is, you would not be writing this thread. The pope has a higher purpose than ‘being in and amongst his people’. He is the leader of the entire Catholic Church.

Being a martyr and seemingly encouraging martyrdom are two different things. God does not desire us to seek out martyrdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top