Why didn't Benedict have a coronation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcliffor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcliffor

Guest
I was reading James-Charles Noonan’s book, The Church Visible, and he sites the documents where Paul VI said a coronation was required, saying that John Paul I requested not to have one because he felt burdened by the task, and the John Paul II decided not have a coronation in honor of JPI. So if it is required, why didn’t Pope Benedict do it?

Also, the pallium he wears is completely different from the palliums popes have worn since the Middle Ages and also different from the one on his coat of arms. I read that this was inspired by mosaics, and it seems to be a clear case of archaeologism, ressurrecting traditions from a certain era because they seem more holy, something the Pope condemned in the Spirit of the Liturgy.

I’m confused. Why has the pope resurrected some important symbols and papal privelages, such as the ermine trim on his mozzetta, and done away with others which his predecessors didn’t even challenge?
 
I wouldn’t read so much into these external things… all Popes have the right to wear whatever non-Liturgical vestment they see fit. Tiaras, mozzettas, these aren’t worn at Mass, and never have been, so it really isn’t that big of a deal.

The pallium that Benedict wears is something akin to an omophorion, which is the Eastern equivalent… it’s not archaeologism, it’s more of a reflection of the both lungs of the Church.
 
The Papal coronation was a throw-back to the time whn the papacy had huge temporal power, vast tracts of land and immense weath. The modern Popes want to show thst the Church has no need of such things and is the servant of the faithful.
 
40.png
mcliffor:
I was reading James-Charles Noonan’s book, The Church Visible, and he sites the documents where Paul VI said a coronation was required, saying that John Paul I requested not to have one because he felt burdened by the task, and the John Paul II decided not have a coronation in honor of JPI. So if it is required, why didn’t Pope Benedict do it?

Also, the pallium he wears is completely different from the palliums popes have worn since the Middle Ages and also different from the one on his coat of arms. I read that this was inspired by mosaics, and it seems to be a clear case of archaeologism, ressurrecting traditions from a certain era because they seem more holy, something the Pope condemned in the Spirit of the Liturgy.

I’m confused. Why has the pope resurrected some important symbols and papal privelages, such as the ermine trim on his mozzetta, and done away with others which his predecessors didn’t even challenge?
Click to expand...
http://www.carotta.de/forum/messlmn/pallium.jpg

The new palium is a throwback to the papacy before the great schism:

“Also very old is the new pallium, the woolen stole of the pope, which signifies his archiepiscopal dignity. Benedict had it woven after 1500 year old mosaics - as a signal: In his first official acts already Benedict XVI wants to introduce the return to a form of papacy as it existed before the great schisms - 1054 East-West, 1517 Catholic-Protestant. A form which was tolerable for all Christians.”

Also, the crosses are red because that is more representative of wounds.
 
40.png
maklavan:
The Papal coronation was a throw-back to the time whn the papacy had huge temporal power, vast tracts of land and immense weath. The modern Popes want to show thst the Church has no need of such things and is the servant of the faithful.
Click to expand...
Thats true, but thats not the reason for the lack of coronation. JP1 did it out of humility, JP2 out of respect for JP1 and B16 because they weren’t prepared to set up a coronation from scratch.
 
40.png
twiztedseraph:
Thats true, but thats not the reason for the lack of coronation. JP1 did it out of humility, JP2 out of respect for JP1 and B16 because they weren’t prepared to set up a coronation from scratch.
Click to expand...
Where did you here that Benedict actually intended to have a coronation? I hadn’t read that.

The interpretation that the tiara is a symbol of temporal power was adressed by JPII in his sermon at his inauguration. He said this was the wrong interpretation. That is how people would interpret it, but it is not what it means.
 
40.png
Jayson:
http://www.carotta.de/forum/messlmn/pallium.jpg

The new palium is a throwback to the papacy before the great schism:

“Also very old is the new pallium, the woolen stole of the pope, which signifies his archiepiscopal dignity. Benedict had it woven after 1500 year old mosaics - as a signal: In his first official acts already Benedict XVI wants to introduce the return to a form of papacy as it existed before the great schisms - 1054 East-West, 1517 Catholic-Protestant. A form which was tolerable for all Christians.”

Also, the crosses are red because that is more representative of wounds.
Click to expand...
It bothers me when Popes do away with parts of our roman heritage because of something which will probably never happen. I mean, how likely is it that the Orthodox Churches will see his new pallium and reconsidered all the doctrines they’ve held sacred for 1000 years?
 
40.png
twiztedseraph:
Thats true, but thats not the reason for the lack of coronation. JP1 did it out of humility, JP2 out of respect for JP1 and B16 because they weren’t prepared to set up a coronation from scratch.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Can you offer an proof?
 
I hope we do NOT go back to papal coronations. I don’t want bare-bones Calvinist simplicity, but that stuff is too much. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Suffering Servant, who set his crown aside for our sakes. I do think, however, that they should have the monk who, during three pauses in the procession, sets a candle to flax hemp, which smolders as he says “Sancte Pater, sic transit gloria mundi.”
And the whole of the ceremony should be in Latin. They can do Italian when he takes possession of Saint John Lateran.

The old-style pallium is part of our “Roman heritage” as well. It’s troublesome that some Catholics don’t think something is traditional unless it was made operative at the time of Trent. The storehouse of the Church’s tradition is huge.
 
There are only about 20 tiaras (or triregnos)still in existence, some were sacked and/or destroyed by armies, some were destroyed by popes themselves.
Probably the reason why the Pope wasn’t crowned is because some tiaras are too heavy, some too small or a combination of both, or probably Benedict XVI doesn’t have time to commission one (most tiaras are on display at the Vatican, some are in other places around the world.)

hope this link would help…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_tiara
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I hope we do NOT go back to papal coronations. I don’t want bare-bones Calvinist simplicity, but that stuff is too much. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Suffering Servant, who set his crown aside for our sakes. I do think, however, that they should have the monk who, during three pauses in the procession, sets a candle to flax hemp, which smolders as he says “Sancte Pater, sic transit gloria mundi.”
And the whole of the ceremony should be in Latin. They can do Italian when he takes possession of Saint John Lateran.

The old-style pallium is part of our “Roman heritage” as well. It’s troublesome that some Catholics don’t think something is traditional unless it was made operative at the time of Trent. The storehouse of the Church’s tradition is huge.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s what people are saying. Traditional MEANS handed down. Just because something existed at some point in the past does not make it traditional. For example, handshaking during mass may have been traditional in the second century, but it wasn’t when it was introduced in the 60s. A traditional chasuble would be a fiddleback chasuble, since that is what persisted throughout history into the coming age, even though the Gothic chasuble was still in use in some places during Trent. Likewise, a traditional Pallium would be the one that was in use when the Pope took the the throne. Seeing it on a mosaic does not actually make it traditional.

The distinction is important because one uses the externals, the visible Church, to give the impression that the Church is something which is larger than the individuls in it and changes much more slowly than the people who make it up, and the other gvies the impression of a Church which changes what it wants to say to the world about the papacy with each pope. Look for a moment at how little the Papal externals changed in the 500 years before Paul VI and it will be easier to see what I’m talking about.
 
40.png
patrick456:
There are only about 20 tiaras (or triregnos)still in existence, some were sacked and/or destroyed by armies, some were destroyed by popes themselves.
Probably the reason why the Pope wasn’t crowned is because some tiaras are too heavy, some too small or a combination of both, or probably Benedict XVI doesn’t have time to commission one (most tiaras are on display at the Vatican, some are in other places around the world.)

hope this link would help…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_tiara
Click to expand...
There are jewelers today that would have no trouble cranking-out a tiara, so supply is not an issue. Perhaps they could use titanium – high strength, low weight and corrosion-resistant.
 
Wow…i sure hope that if not Benedict XVI, at least his sucessor could use one of those, but i hope that that particular tiara would not be melted by Benedict XVI’s sucessor’s succesor. 😃
 
40.png
mcliffor:
I don’t think that’s what people are saying. Traditional MEANS handed down. Just because something existed at some point in the past does not make it traditional. For example, handshaking during mass may have been traditional in the second century, but it wasn’t when it was introduced in the 60s. A traditional chasuble would be a fiddleback chasuble, since that is what persisted throughout history into the coming age, even though the Gothic chasuble was still in use in some places during Trent. Likewise, a traditional Pallium would be the one that was in use when the Pope took the the throne. Seeing it on a mosaic does not actually make it traditional.
Click to expand...
Granted, but at SOME point, for example, a single priest somewhere, pope, cardinal, bishop, or simple pastor, put on the first fiddleback chasuble! At some point, a pope said, “Ya know, I’d like to have a little think on what the pallium should look like” and then we had the “new” old one or the “old” new one, rather than the one that was in the mosaic. I’d like to think that our forebearers took it in stride, but no, I’m sure they went on like the “traditional Catholic” in the following article, spouting off about the smoke of Satan having entered the Church and Anti-christ having slithered up onto the altar. We’re talking about hats and scraps of cloth!!! I collect Catholicana and I’m as interested as the next person in these sorts of things (I own a cardinals biretta and a reproduction of the death mask of Pius IX), but there have been some post-conciliar simplifications that I think are much more in keeping with the Holy Father’s title of Servant of the Servants of God.

The following is why I’m a bit off the idea of restoring papal coronations. GRRRRR!!!:
dailycatholic.org/issue/05Apr/apr29ed.htm
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Granted, but at SOME point, for example, a single priest somewhere, pope, cardinal, bishop, or simple pastor, put on the first fiddleback chasuble! At some point, a pope said, “Ya know, I’d like to have a little think on what the pallium should look like” and then we had the “new” old one or the “old” new one, rather than the one that was in the mosaic. I’d like to think that our forebearers took it in stride, but no, I’m sure they went on like the “traditional Catholic” in the following article, spouting off about the smoke of Satan having entered the Church and Anti-christ having slithered up onto the altar. We’re talking about hats and scraps of cloth!!! I collect Catholicana and I’m as interested as the next person in these sorts of things (I own a cardinals biretta and a reproduction of the death mask of Pius IX), but there have been some post-conciliar simplifications that I think are much more in keeping with the Holy Father’s title of Servant of the Servants of God.

The following is why I’m a bit off the idea of restoring papal coronations. GRRRRR!!!:
dailycatholic.org/issue/05Apr/apr29ed.htm
Click to expand...
But were these simplifications in keeping with all his other titles? Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the Vatican City State? His has many titles, and you have to ask yourself if these simplifications are also in keeping with those. I mean, is it that unreasonable that Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church gets 24 candles around his bier? He is, afterall, so much more than our servant, and I think these symbols are particularly important in today’s world. Everyone is ready to tell the pope he’s the servent of the Church, but how many people actually recognize the Pope for all these other things, especially in the US?
 
There is always the issue that a man looks fairly effete and dorkish wearing a crown and riding on a sedia gestatoria…
 
40.png
mcliffor:
But were these simplifications in keeping with all his other titles? Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the Vatican City State? His has many titles, and you have to ask yourself if these simplifications are also in keeping with those. I mean, is it that unreasonable that Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church gets 24 candles around his bier? He is, afterall, so much more than our servant, and I think these symbols are particularly important in today’s world. Everyone is ready to tell the pope he’s the servent of the Church, but how many people actually recognize the Pope for all these other things, especially in the US?
Click to expand...
None of those others are lost in the title Servant of the Servants of God (btw, I don’t think it’s for me to dictate to him, so I don’t foresee my reminding him in any uppity way that he is, in fact, the SotSoG). I don’t think he needs a crown/tiara, I think it sends the wrong message, as does the sedia gestoria, the imperial fans of ostirch/egret plumes, etc. The miter might ought to be richer than your typical bishop’s, the robes that every priest wears a bit more sumptuous for the Holy Father, etc., but not much more than the Fisherman’s ring, the pallium, and the papal patoral staff to set him apart (the latter looks different from that of an ordinary bishop. The popes hadn’t carried a crozier ordinarily for centuries. The pastoral staff surmounted by the Crucified Christ is a nice “innovation” or “novelty.”). Simple dignity and moral force have far more to say and say it far better, IMHO (and I always think a bit of pomp and circumstance, let alone reverence, is called for) than an overwheening concern for whether or not one’s robe swishes in the right direction or whether a green chasuble makes one look like an avacado or not. John Paul I had it right, as did John Paul the Great and good Pope Benedict. And Paul VI was RIGHT to lay that tiara on the altar. Let’s not pick it up again.
 
Pope Benedict XVI seems to have a far better sense of taste than the last several Pope to boot…
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
None of those others are lost in the title Servant of the Servants of God (btw, I don’t think it’s for me to dictate to him, so I don’t foresee my reminding him in any uppity way that he is, in fact, the SotSoG). I don’t think he needs a crown/tiara, I think it sends the wrong message, as does the sedia gestoria, the imperial fans of ostirch/egret plumes, etc. The miter might ought to be richer than your typical bishop’s, the robes that every priest wears a bit more sumptuous for the Holy Father, etc., but not much more than the Fisherman’s ring, the pallium, and the papal patoral staff to set him apart (the latter looks different from that of an ordinary bishop. The popes hadn’t carried a crozier ordinarily for centuries. The pastoral staff surmounted by the Crucified Christ is a nice “innovation” or “novelty.”). Simple dignity and moral force have far more to say and say it far better, IMHO (and I always think a bit of pomp and circumstance, let alone reverence, is called for) than an overwheening concern for whether or not one’s robe swishes in the right direction or whether a green chasuble makes one look like an avacado or not. John Paul I had it right, as did John Paul the Great and good Pope Benedict. And Paul VI was RIGHT to lay that tiara on the altar. Let’s not pick it up again.
Click to expand...
But Paul VI HIMSELF required a coronation for the Supreme Pontiff. Clearly, he saw more than jsut dead temporal power in it’s symbolism.

Likewise, the title of servant isn’t lost in a coronation. He is our servant because he continues the Petrine ministry, which is STILL symbolised in the tiara and has been for well over 1000 years.

Noonans says, “the coronation symbolizes the religious institution of the sacred rite of ascending the See of Peter…symbolic of a pope’s authority as Christ’s Vicar on Earth and his Unique position as head of the Universal Church.” This is what Paul VI had in mind when he made it mandatory and what JP II understood when he turned it down.

Besides, the Pope, as I said above, is much MUCH more than a unique Bishop, just a Bishop is more than a priest. The ring and pallium are important symbols, but so is the tiara.

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.
 
40.png
mcliffor:
But Paul VI HIMSELF required a coronation for the Supreme Pontiff. Clearly, he saw more than jsut dead temporal power in it’s symbolism.** That may have been his prudential judgement, but the effect of his having set the tiara on the altar may have been from a deeper prompting. Also, he cannot bind future popes on such a matter (discipline and form) any more than Pius V could bind him on the Pian Mass. **

Likewise, the title of servant isn’t lost in a coronation. He is our servant because he continues the Petrine ministry, which is STILL symbolised in the tiara and has been for well over 1000 years.

Noonans says, “the coronation symbolizes the religious institution of the sacred rite of ascending the See of Peter…symbolic of a pope’s authority as Christ’s Vicar on Earth and his Unique position as head of the Universal Church.” This is what Paul VI had in mind when he made it mandatory and what JP II understood when he turned it down. He could only make it mandatory for his pointificate.

Besides, the Pope, as I said above, is much MUCH more than a unique Bishop, just a Bishop is more than a priest. The ring and pallium are important symbols, but so is the tiara.
Click to expand...
**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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top