Why is Cardinal Scola's Pallium upside down? (also is this the first time it's ever been given outside of Mass?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter PazzoGrande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PacoG said:
The pallium is not a symbol of teaching authority. It is a symbol of metropolitical authority. A metropolitan is first among equals in his province. The pallium symbolizes that primacy of honor. Otherwise, the metropolitan of a province has the same teaching authority as the bishops of the suffragan dioceses in his province. Example: Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and Metropolitan of the Galveston-Houston Province has no more teaching authority than Bishop Daniel Flores of the Diocese of Brownsville. However, when the Cardinal visits the Diocese of Brownsville, he wears his pallium to indicate his primacy of place over Bishop Flores.

At least that is the way I understand it.

The exception would be the pope’s pallium. In that case, it is a sign of his Petrine Ministry.
Click to expand...
I think VictorDominican wrote that as a joke, not meant to be taken seriously, that it was just a way of putting symbolism on a mistake.
 
PazzoGrande said:
I’d assume it’s because it was just handed to him upside down and he didn’t pay attention as it went on. Not every little mistake is because of the burdens of running the Church.

He does work hard but I think we’re reading too much into it when we make it as if everything is a little martyrdom.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right.
 
PacoG said:
But those archbishops aren’t metropolitans and aren’t entitled to the pallium without some kind of dispensation. Same thing with titular archbishops and archbishops of non-metropolitical archdioceses.

The pallium is the exclusive vestment of a metropolitan.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the title, not the pallium here. Metropolitans who become non-arch bishops or non-metropolitan archbishops lose their right to use the pallium.
 
PazzoGrande said:
The Holy Father put the pallium on him upside-down. Was that just a mistake, or was that done for a reason? (I also noticed he sometimes puts on the biretta incorrectly when he puts it on a new Cardinal, so I guess it could just be a mistake.) Also, was this the first time the Holy Father gave a Pallium outside of the regular Pallium Mass?
Click to expand...
I’m in the “just a mistake” camp.

As far as presenting the pallium outside of the regular Pallium Mass, according to Father Guy Selvester, the Pallium Mass is a recent tradition while conferral of the pallium to individual metropolitans shortly after their appointments is the older tradition. omniapost.blogspot.com/2011/09/pope-revives-older-pallium-custom.html
 
PazzoGrande said:
Nevertheless, in cases like that, I’d think it would be either given to a delegate or the person would just have to wait for the one next year.
Click to expand...
The pallium cannot be given to a delegate.
I wondered if the Pope gave Scola a special conferral so as to signal something. They say that when he nominated Scola to Milan, it was him signalling that he would favour Scola’s candidacy to become the next pope; if that’s so, this special treatment could be the Holy Father underlining that.
Click to expand...
It is improper for a Pope to suggest who should be his successor.
 
JGMendes4049 said:
Sometimes, when an archbishop is appointed to a diocese where the ordinary is usually a bishop, the Pope gives him the title of archbishop ad personam, so that they’re called the Archbishop-Bishop of Anydiocese. Is it possible that Cardinal Scola will be given the title of patriarch ad personam, becoming the Patriarch-Archbishop of Milan? Is there any precedent of a situation like this happening?
Click to expand...
The title of patriarch is never conferred ad personam.
 
zab said:
Can’t a person wonder? Can’t a person ask if there is some significance without being accused of spreading gossip?
Click to expand...
A person can wonder anything he likes, but when he puts that wondering into words that others can hear or read, and includes expressions such as “I heard…” or “I read…” and “I wonder if…,” it becomes gossip.
 
Chatter163 said:
A person can wonder anything he likes, but when he puts that wondering into words that others can hear or read, and includes expressions such as “I heard…” or “I read…” and “I wonder if…,” it becomes gossip.
Click to expand...
That is a rediculous thing to say and not always true. It could be true if the person had an intent of spreading gossip but if they are just inquiring as in this case if there is some significance to the way the pallium was placed on the Cardinal, then it is not gossip. How are we supposed to find out the truth about something if we can’t in good conscience use the words, “I heard” “I read” “I wondered if…” ?
 
zab said:
That is a rediculous thing to say and not always true. It could be true if the person had an intent of spreading gossip but if they are just inquiring as in this case if there is some significance to the way the pallium was placed on the Cardinal, then it is not gossip. How are we supposed to find out the truth about something if we can’t in good conscience use the words, “I heard” “I read” “I wondered if…” ?
Click to expand...
No one ever has the intent of gossiping. Nearly all gossipers will deny that they are, in fact, gossiping. It is always someone else who gossips.

In this case, had you simply stated that you had seen the Pope place the pallium in an upside-down position, and wondered why he might have done so, that would have been one thing. But you did not do that. You began speculating publicly about hidden meanings, etc. That is the difference.
 
Chatter163 said:
No one ever has the intent of gossiping. Nearly all gossipers will deny that they are, in fact, gossiping. It is always someone else who gossips.

In this case, had you simply stated that you had seen the Pope place the pallium in an upside-down position, and wondered why he might have done so, that would have been one thing. But you did not do that. You began speculating publicly about hidden meanings, etc. That is the difference.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. I only responded to another person’s post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top