Why didn't Benedict have a coronation?

[BillyT92679]

What matters is what the Holy Father says, not what he wears, no matter what symbolic weight there might be. I’m sorry, but worrying about that is, to me, worrying about the length of one’s phylacteries or the width of one’s tassels. They’re nice accoutrements, nothing more. We all know the Sovereign Pontiff has a charism distinct from the Episcopacy, but collegiality does exist too… the Church is oligarchic really more than monarchical, though the Vicar of Christ certainly has rights reserved to him. Ultramontanism is efficient,and with it comes the appropriate Papal pomp, but there is Matthew Chapter 18 there to let everyone know that the Bishops aren’t mere branch managers of the Church.

 

[mcliffor]

**No, it actually isn’t. The pope was a bishop before he was a monarch. He HAD to become a worldly monarch (and it was a good job he did, too, or the Dark Ages would have been a lot darker, not that they were all that dark to begin with). Now, I think we understand the Papacy without that burden of worldly (secular) government, but with the infinitely heavier burden of having to call the secular world/government/people to account to the Justice and Everlasting Mercy of God. It is similar to the role of the prophet in the Old Testament: the castigator of kings. He doesn’t need any more regnal dignity than the staff, the ring, the pallium, and the miter. In fact, I think it can be argued that more than that would have the appearance of detracting from his authority (“less in more”), because he would be leaning on such things as props. I remember John Paul the Great in his robes, staff in hand, thundering “Silencio!” at a Marxist-manipulated crowd in Central America. I wouldn’t have been more impressed if he’d been carried out in the sedia, tiarra on his head, gloves on his hand, shielding by an imperial canopy, less, in fact, for though they were Marxists, his audience was dirt poor. **

I doubt, except for the odd one or two over centuries, that we see any more coronations anyway.

The Eastern Bishops wear mitres which look a great deal like crowns, but it is understood that this is a symbol of their ministry, not their worldliness. The first western bishops wore mitres resembling crowns as well, but they abandoned them due to the cold northern climates; wearing metal was very cold. It may stand for worldliness to you, but this is *a posteriori *symbolism and NOT what the triple teared tiara represented when it was placed on the Pius XII or Paul VI head, and certainly not what it stands for when the statue of St. Peter in the Vatican is crowned every year. Is the Vatican celebrating St. Peter’s worldliness when he is crowned, or are they celebrating his ministry? Is “Prince of the Apostles” a reference to his worldly power or his role in founding the Church.

The requirements which Paul VI set down were meant to be a guidline for future elections. If he thought he had no control over how a pope was elected and initiated he would never have written them. his own election and coronation was over with.

I’m also not saying that these things are necessary, but symbols like this are important. The Church has always understood that, hence the beauty of it’s Church buildings, altars, vestments and music. We like to think people understand the extent of the Petrine ministry enough that these symbols are superfluous, but then people often say the same about the liturgy and transubstantiation, and getting rid of Eucharistic Adoration hasn’t done much for people’s belief in transubstantiation, has it? I don’t think that an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch is leaning on his jeweled mitre as a “prop” anymore than the Church uses polyphony and gregorian chants as props in the liturgy. They are aids, and important and useful ones at that. They do matter.

 

[AJV]

mcliffor:

The Eastern Bishops wear mitres which look a great deal like crowns, but it is understood that this is a symbol of their ministry, not their worldliness. The first western bishops wore mitres resembling crowns as well, but they abandoned them due to the cold northern climates; wearing metal was very cold.

Sorry if this seems like nitpicking but the use of mitres in the Eastern Church in the Byzantine tradition (at least shaped liked crowns-not sure whether they use other head coverings before that) came into use representing a bishop’s temporal authority within the Ottoman Empire once the Byzantine Emperor and Empire had disappeared which is somewhere is the 1500’s . At this time other Imperial regalia- the Eagle rugs placed under the feet of a bishop, the sakkos, etc. all were adopted. Overtime, these were of course given spiritualised meanings.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mcliffor:

The Eastern Bishops wear mitres which look a great deal like crowns, but it is understood that this is a symbol of their ministry, not their worldliness. The first western bishops wore mitres resembling crowns as well, but they abandoned them due to the cold northern climates. It may stand for worldliness to you, but this is *a posteriori *symbolism and NOT what the triple teared tiara represented when it was placed on the Pius XII or Paul VI head, and certainly not what it stands for when the statue of St. Peter in the Vatican is crowned every year. Is the Vatican celebrating St. Peter’s worldliness when he is crowned, or are they celebrating his ministry? Is “Prince of the Apostles” a reference to his worldly power or his role in founding the Church. We’re talking apples and oranges here and I think you’re aware of that. I think we know full well what the world today would see a papal coronation as being and representing: it’s impossible to keep a note of triumphalism out of coronation and while we do hold the fullness of Truth, we receive it by Grace, which should be grasped with accompanying humility.

The requirements which Paul VI set down were meant to be a guidline for future elections. If he thought he had no control over how a pope was elected and initiated he would never have written them. his own election and coronation was over with. This may well be so, in terms of his hopes and his prudential judgement, but I think HH Pope Paul VI also understood that this would NOT be binding on the prudential judgement of his successors. HH Pope John Paul II also made changes in how his successor would be elected. For all intents and purposes, HH Pope Benedict XVI may do the same for HIS successor (God forbid that should be occasioned any time soon). As for the coronation, Popes can freely modify, alter, or entirely dispense with parts or all of it. It isn’t a part of the deposit of faith and it isn’t even a sacrament (if he isn’t a bishop already when elected, the man elected pope is immediately ordained by either the Camerlengo or the Dean of the College of Cardinals, I forget which).

I’m also not saying that these things are necessary, but symbols like this are important. The Church has always understood that, hence the beauty of it’s Church buildings, altars, vestments and music. We like to think people understand the extent of the Petrine ministry enough that these symbols are superfluous, but then people often say the same about the liturgy and transubstantiation, and getting rid of Eucharistic Adoration hasn’t done much for people’s belief in transubstantiation, has it? I don’t think that an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch is leaning on his jeweled mitre as a “prop” anymore than the Church uses polyphony and gregorian chants as props in the liturgy. They are aids, and important and useful ones at that. They do matter.

**I’m also not asserting that we should dispense with all ceremonial and certainly not all beauty in our worship. I realize symbols matter and matter deeply. I dislike modern church buildings, modern church music, I don’t like polyester vestments, or clay ciborii or chalices. What I’m asserting is that the last two methods of “beginning” a papacy, in this day and in this time, and, I expect, for the next few centuries (though I don’t know) struck the perfect note and that we shouldn’t return to coronations. John Paul was never crowned and yet he has done more to affectively and positively influence people’s view of the papacy than any other pope of this century and possibly of all time (unless one reckons credible the whining complaints of the radical traditionalists). The man never had a tiara on his head while doing it. **

**I will draw another parrallel. Around the 12 century, the laity stopped receiving the Most Precious Blood under its seperate Species, mostly due to the heresy that you had to rec. both for the Sacrament to valid. The Church basically, through Her right to exercise discipline over the Sacraments, forced people to understand that the fullness of Grace, the Fullness of Christ’s Presence, was equally present in both Species. This is one of the things quoted to me by “traditional” Catholics as to why we still shouldn’t rec. from the chalice (I do): people will get the idea propagated by this ancient heresy, that you have to rec. both to get All of Christ. I should think the same thing ought to apply here: it isn’t really safe to go back to papal coronations because there’s a flock of people who seem to think that the TRIMMINGS are the SUBSTANCE of the Petrine Covenant. **

I’m not saying we shouldn’t use “aids” and “props,” I’m saying some “aids” and “props” are no long appropriate and the ones used by the last three pope now are more than sufficient and appropriate. Look, I may not get my way. The next pope may well want to be crowned. I just wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[mcliffor]

I’m also not asserting that we should dispense with all ceremonial and certainly not all beauty in our worship. I realize symbols matter and matter deeply. I dislike modern church buildings, modern church music, I don’t like polyester vestments, or clay ciborii or chalices. What I’m asserting is that the last two methods of “beginning” a papacy, in this day and in this time, and, I expect, for the next few centuries (though I don’t know) struck the perfect note and that we shouldn’t return to coronations. John Paul was never crowned and yet he has done more to affectively and positively influence people’s view of the papacy than any other pope of this century and possibly of all time (unless one reckons credible the whining complaints of the radical traditionalists). The man never had a tiara on his head while doing it.

But that’s not to say he couldn’t have enhanced the world’s understanding of the doctrinal role of the papacy as defined in the First Vatican Council if he had had a coronation. He did enough for sure, but that doesn’t seem to me like a valid argument for why the popes shouldn’t return to a coronation. Again, not necessary for a good pope, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

JKirkLVNV:

I will draw another parrallel. Around the 12 century, the laity stopped receiving the Most Precious Blood under its seperate Species, mostly due to the heresy that you had to rec. both for the Sacrament to valid. The Church basically, through Her right to exercise discipline over the Sacraments, forced people to understand that the fullness of Grace, the Fullness of Christ’s Presence, was equally present in both Species. This is one of the things quoted to me by “traditional” Catholics as to why we still shouldn’t rec. from the chalice (I do): people will get the idea propagated by this ancient heresy, that you have to rec. both to get All of Christ. I should think the same thing ought to apply here: it isn’t really safe to go back to papal coronations because there’s a flock of people who seem to think that the TRIMMINGS are the SUBSTANCE of the Petrine Covenant.

Except for the few vocal websites you’ve addressed, I’ve never hear dof anyone thinking that trimmings were the substance of the Petrine Covenant. I have met people who argue againt the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff all together, that he is not the Vicar of Christ and can’t tell them what to do. He’s just a bishop and doesn’t have control over our lives. Take people’s respone to Humanae Vitae for example. I’m not saying people wouldn’t respond this way if the traditional symbols and ceremonies which conveyed the importance of the Pope’s role in the world were brought back, but it convey to the world that they simply aren’t “allowed” to think of the pope that way and still be Catholic. It’s surprising to see how many Catholics feel uncomfortable with a term like Supreme Pontiif, which is just a legit as Servant of the Servant of GOd as you mentioned earlier. The full and complete understanding of his ministry is not as wide spread as it once was, and I think the coronation ceremonies would help counter that. Sure, puting a crown on his head won’t make people wake up and listen, but it would reinforce his importance for individuals who haven’t yet decided to selectively chose which of his decrees they will follow.

 

[AJV]

mcliffor:

It’s a matter of deciding whether the Pope has to emphaisze the ways in which he’s “like” regular bishops or the ways in which he is “unique.” I would say given the threats to unity in the modern Church and the way people ignore the curia, it’s more important in today’s world to use externals to display the importance and authority of this ministry than it ever has been before.

Is it? I hardly think many people are going to sit up and listen because he wears a crown on his head. If they don’t respect the office of a pope KNOWING what it entails, a crown is hardly likely to change that attitude.

Why do so many people question the authority of the Church and the Pope? It’s because they see it as : “Why should some old authoritarian in Rome tell me what to do?” The Tiara rather than alering them to a sign of authority only increases their belief that they are “repressed” under an authoritarian Church.

I’m not arguing against the re-instatement of the Tiara- just pointing this out.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mcliffor:

But that’s not to say he couldn’t have enhanced the world’s understanding of the doctrinal role of the papacy as defined in the First Vatican Council if he had had a coronation. He did enough for sure, but that doesn’t seem to me like a valid argument for why the popes shouldn’t return to a coronation. Again, not necessary for a good pope, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Except for the few vocal websites you’ve addressed, I’ve never hear dof anyone thinking that trimmings were the substance of the Petrine Covenant. I have met people who argue againt the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff all together, that he is not the Vicar of Christ and can’t tell them what to do. He’s just a bishop and doesn’t have control over our lives. Take people’s respone to Humanae Vitae for example. I’m not saying people wouldn’t respond this way if the traditional symbols and ceremonies which conveyed the importance of the Pope’s role in the world were brought back, but it convey to the world that they simply aren’t “allowed” to think of the pope that way and still be Catholic. It’s surprising to see how many Catholics feel uncomfortable with a term like Supreme Pontiif, which is just a legit as Servant of the Servant of GOd as you mentioned earlier. The full and complete understanding of his ministry is not as wide spread as it once was, and I think the coronation ceremonies would help counter that. Sure, puting a crown on his head won’t make people wake up and listen, but it would reinforce his importance for individuals who haven’t yet decided to selectively chose which of his decrees they will follow.

We’ll have to agree to disagree: I don’t think it should be done, I think it inadviseable, and I think it would send the wrong message from the Vicar of the One Who bound a towel about Himself and washed His servants feet, who stated that while foxes had dens and birds their nests, He, the Son of Man, had no place to lay His Head, and Whose only crown on earth was made out of thorns.

I truly do love the smells and bells and rich vestments and sonorous chant and am fully aware of what those things are intended to convey. I just don’t think the Vicar of Christ on Earth should have a coronation or should want to have a coronation. It’s too much.

 

[Agricola]

Dear all,

Personally, I think that the lack of a coronation is too bad, but that a coronation is not really necessary at this point in time. Traditions like the coronation are being brought back little by little, so I don’t worry about it.

As to the titles that the Pope has, he also is the Vicar of Christ, is he not? … even as he is of Christ, he is of Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. His position as the leader of the Church, the singular moral beacon in the world, which points to the heavenly Kingdom, should not be overlooked. A crown would be appropriate, if the Pope should choose to wear one.

I think the coronation of the Pope would have been a beautiful expression of his position. After he is crowned the Vicar of Christ on earth, there is nothing stopping him from being the SSG.

I also think that the Pope is taking the right approach. He is not the kind of man to do things without thinking them through thuroughly.

Oh yes, and I like his pallium too. It may be older in style than people are used to, but the Church is also an older institution than people are used to.

Anyway, I say trust him. He knows best.

… and yes, I think that the Orthodox do look at him differently than earlier popes. I happen to know a handful of Coptic, Greek, and Russian Orthodox, and they appreciate the candour, honesty, and love of God that Benedict XVI has. Some of the younger ones are yearning for union with such passion that it is palpable. The universal character of the Church does not escape them any more than it should us.

I’ve written enough, I’m sure other posters would be able to render much more thoughtful diologue on this matter. I just thought I’d chime in.

God bless,

Agricola

 

[Chatter163]

Remember that Paul VI stopped using the papal tiara near the end of the Council, when he left it on the altar at St. Peter’s. While it is true that he provided for the continued coronation of subsequent pontiffs in his 1975 apostolic consitution Roman Pontifici Eligendo, given his own abandonment of the tiara a decade earlier, he probably did not conceive of the possibility that a successor might altogether dispense with the ceremony. John Paul I chose to do exactly that in 1978, as did John Paul II six weeks later, though he did include a handful of rituals that JP1 had not. JP2 did not provide for any type of coronation in his 1996 apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which provided for the next conclave. We all know what Benedict XVI chose to do.

This is entirely a disciplinary matter. One Pontiff cannot bind a successor and each may choose to do as he sees fit. As Supreme Pontiff, he has supreme authority to establish, modify, reinterpret or discard such regulations.