Why no more Papal Ceremonial?

[historyb]

Paul meant well in leaving the tiara at the altar. He was trying to be “humble”.

But it would be more humble to simply submit to 1000 years of tradition.

To say, “Look at me, I’m going to get rid of what all my pompish predecessors did because I’m more humble,”…actually strikes me as very arrogant.

Agreed, in this case it brings more attention to oneself. Dare I say given the right circumstances it could be a prideful thing to have done. Just mho

 

[havemercy]

Regardless of the Holy Father’s intention, was his move a necessary one? I posted the question before, but, along with the coronation went taking the “papal oath”, so to speak (I don’t know the name of the oath itself)…Am I right? Who has the authority to remove such an oath from being said? Blessed Pius IX wouldn’t add St. Joseph to the Canon, and yet, Pope Paul VI felt like discontinuing a glorious tradition of the church, and the oath along with it.

I don’t like it one bit.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Who has the authority to remove such an oath from being said?

The Pope.

 

[bear06]

The Pope.

Ah, wouldn’t that be the same person that put it there in the first place?

All of this pitting of one pope against another really should stop. Why are some trying to find one more way to divide? They are all Peter and I think that St. Catherine would have some very choice words for some of us. In all of her words to the popes, never did she show the lack of respect I see on these forums and elsewhere.

 

[GerardP]

All of this pitting of one pope against another really should stop.

Why? I think it’s a good thing in order to monitor when we have good Popes and when we have bad Popes. St. Pius X was a good man and good Pope. JPII was a good man and not really a good Pope just as St. Celestine was a good man and not a good Pope.

Why are some trying to find one more way to divide?

That’s the nature of finding the truth.

They are all Peter and I think that St. Catherine would have some very choice words for some of us.

Some have a lot of Simon in them as well as Peter. We’ve only had 3 Popes raised to the altars in the last 1000 years or so.

That should say something about the quality of Popes and the risks to the soul that the job demands.

The necessity is to always pray for the Pope good or bad.

In all of her words to the popes, never did she show the lack of respect I see on these forums and elsewhere.

Different time and different place. St. Paul would have had a harder time dressing down the Pope in the Middle Ages than he did in the first decades of the Church.

 

[GerardP]

To accuse JPII of not being humble is quite silly considering he spent that latter years of his life exposing his quite demeaning illness to everyone. May I obtain one ounce the humilty he showed.

I agree, but he didn’t start out that way. I find it particularly interesting that he removed most of the traditional ceremony from the papacy. Instead relying on his personal charisma (which all will grant that he had in abundance.

Prior Popes had done the complete opposite. They let the man disappear into the robes and the Tiara and the papacy not the particular man was exalted. When you look at paintings through the centuries, the Pope was always identifiable. When you look at old photos, you can barely tell which was Pius X, Pius XII or John XXIII at a distance, but you know “It’s the Pope”.

But with JPII he relied on his natural gifts, great voice, acting ability, vigorous masculine vitality and athleticism, winning smile and twinkling blue eyes yet for some reason, God took it all away from him piece by piece and very slowly and painfully.

I think it was when all the hoopla had left JPII"s charismatic figure that he truly grew in his personal humility.

The sad part is that his handlers or perhaps he could not see the intimate Christ-like repose that his broken body portrayed and instead he looked much like "the mascot"of the Catholic Church in some unfortunate circumstances.

I recommend that people look at the films of Leo XIII in his 90’s and the other Popes on film and see if they can compare them to the massive amounts of video of JPII and see a poignant loss of something ineffable about the majesty of the faithful.

Thank God that BXVI is taking steps to bring that back and elevate the perception of the papacy to something more than a rock star and something that challenges and upsets the world.

 

[bear06]

Why? I think it’s a good thing in order to monitor when we have good Popes and when we have bad Popes.

What’s truly funny is that you think yourself the monitor.

That’s the nature of finding the truth.

And this thought comes from where?

Some have a lot of Simon in them as well as Peter. We’ve only had 3 Popes raised to the altars in the last 1000 years or so.

That should say something about the quality of Popes and the risks to the soul that the job demands.

And you know them not to be saints how?

The necessity is to always pray for the Pope good or bad.

I don’t know where you think prayer comes in in my comments but I didn’t mention praying for the pope. That would be a given. What I did mention is that lack of respect shown to the last few Holy Fathers. I highly doubt you could claim that this is not the case. Again, St. Catherine would have some pretty choice words for some of us.

 

[bear06]

I agree, but he didn’t start out that way. I find it particularly interesting that he removed most of the traditional ceremony from the papacy. Instead relying on his personal charisma (which all will grant that he had in abundance.

Prior Popes had done the complete opposite.

 

[GerardP]

What’s truly funny is that you think yourself the monitor.

We are all required to be vigilant.

And this thought comes from where?

God through St. Paul. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. "

Why do you think he included that “we” in there if it was not possible that “we” would preach a different gospel?

And you know them not to be saints how?

They may very well be, but for some reason the Church has not lifted them up to altars as examples of heroic virtue. The utter humility of St. Celestine and the indomitable couragel of St. Pius V and the utter lack of diplomacy on the part of St. Pius X are examples of extremes in the papacy. The more reasonable and rational Popes by the world’s measure haven’t been raised.

I don’t know where you think prayer comes in in my comments but I didn’t mention praying for the pope. That would be a given.

I included that as a caveat to those who think if you don’t approve of a Pope’s actions or inactions that you’re not a good Catholic.

What I did mention is that lack of respect shown to the last few Holy Fathers. I highly doubt you could claim that this is not the case. Again, St. Catherine would have some pretty choice words for some of us.

I tend to think that the Holy Fathers brought that on themselves when they ceded so much power to the bishops in the aftermath of the Council. The lack of clarity coming out of the Vatican and the unwillingness to discipline dissidents has given the impression that the Pope is a paper tiger to many liberals.

 

[GerardP]

 

[AlexV]

Yeah, those “nets into deeper waters” have really yielded quite a catch, haven’t they?

The pontificate of Paul VI was one of the most disastrous in modern papal history.

 

[childofmary1143]

Yeah, those “nets into deeper waters” have really yielded quite a catch, haven’t they?

The pontificate of Paul VI was one of the most disastrous in modern papal history.

Oh yeah writing Humanae Vitae showed how out of touch and mediaeval he really was.

I’ve heard of armchair quarterbacks but this takes the cake.

 

[AlexV]

Quite a bit more happened in those fifteen years than one encyclical.

Nothing much new in that document either. Derivative of Casti Conubii, 1942.

 

[Struggling]

The pontificate of Paul VI was one of the most disastrous in modern papal history.

And yet, I totally don’t blame the Venerable Paul. He had sincere good intentions, it’s just that…well, you know what they say about the road to hell.

Paul himself was a humble, kind, holy man. But I get the impression that he was way in over his head. That a lot was happening around him that he was oblivious to, that bureaucrats became in control, and that he was very troubled but didn’t know what to do. He suffered much, I think, but was sort of naive and didn’t have the “take control” attitude needed to put the bureaucrats in their proper place. So he, in loveable meekness, sorta signed off on a lot of stuff that maybe he shouldn’t have. It’s not his fault, I certainly respect him as a man…but meekness like that is not what was needed right then.

Humanae Vitae was a heroic act, and I respect him infinitely for it. But, at that point, the psychological battle had been lost. People just ignored it because the Church was now impotent over their “consciences” (read: self-will and self-love)…

 

[Struggling]

Indeed, through the surrendering of the tiara, it might well have been strengthened.

I just find it suspicious that you say this, because it happens to be the current party line.

That’s the thing that disturbs the traditionalists about the so-called neo-conservatives; if you had lived in the time of Pius XII you would have supported it, and if BXVI picks it up again tommorow…you will suddenly support it.

Considering all things in the light of tradition is a much more level-headed way to be a Catholic than simply conforming to the current opinions and nuances of the current pope. His opinions do deserve consideration, but only alongside the opinions of 265 other popes. This “papolatry” that slavishly adheres to the current pope’s “spin” on every teaching…is unnecessary. If you believe the dogma, there is no need to be part of the current agenda or style of Catholicism, because those change throughout history. You don’t need to be part of the current Vatican “trend”…

 

[AlexV]

Well said…one of the most disturbing trends of the last few years in Roman Catholicism has been the subtle and not so subtle rise of papolatry. It’s sometimes part of the package with unusually long pontificates. One forgets that history doesn’t start over at the Year Zero with every pontiff.

 

[Struggling]

We’ve only had 3 Popes raised to the altars in the last 1000 years or so.

And yet…just about every Pope of the 20th century is probably slated to become a Saint.

Not that they weren’t holy men…but were they heroically and extraordinarily holy?

Well, under JPII’s canonization standards…perhaps…

All joking aside, I don’t doubt that they’re in heaven, but I think that to make popes Saints to cement a particular agenda that they represent (which is what seems to be happening)…is indecent. An underhanded tactic. Waiting periods should be brought back for all Saints, but for popes…it should be a century or more. To truly remove all political taint that may be on it…to truly see if their messages were timeless and universal, or if they were just the “fad” of a given age.

Enshrining a particular philosophical trend or agenda like that…is an abuse of canonization. Though certainly more hard-line movements in the past have done it too.

But the comparison…3 popes in 1000 years…compared to likely 4 or 5 last century alone…says things.

It does indicate to me the “enshrining an agenda” tactic. But it also does seem to me that the popes of the past century HAVE been holier. However, is this necessarily a good thing? As GerardP was saying about personal charisma…do we really want Saints as Popes very often?

Because, as Celestine shows, being a saintly human is not any indication that they will be a good Pope.

And if the Pope is also a Saint…that can lead to a mistaking of the Man for the Office. A pope should disappear into the papacy…but someone revered not just for their office, but also personally for their holiness…can lead to the disturbing cult-of-personality we’ve seen building up around popes lately, and confuse the pope’s role as public figure vs. private man.

The cardinals’ first duty is to elect a POPE, not a Saint. They need to elect a good leader, a good administrator, a good teacher. Not necessarily a good man. The popes are supposed to enforce the cold, hard truths of the faith. That is the office, it is not just some bully pulpit. The Church does need good public examples of holiness…but we have saints and priests and religious and holy laity for that. It is not the pope’s role, particularly. It’s nice if he’s holy, obviously…but his personal saintliness shouldn’t outshine his public papacy.

 

[AlexV]

It’s fascinating that one of the few pope saints from that millenium before modern times was Celestine V, who abdicated.

Slowly, the unfortunate trend John Paul II started with almost nonstop canonizations/beatifications will be reversed (it’s already started…Benedict XVI’s reign has seen far fewer).

 

[Struggling]

What I did mention is that lack of respect shown to the last few Holy Fathers.

Another neoconservative attitude that irks trads. Why is the fact that they were the “last few” really matter? Does a pope’s authority decrease as they slip further back in time?? Do you rank how much respect or consideration you give a pope’s opinions based on how close he is to you in history?

I’ve seen a lot of disrespect for popes farther in the past from neocons as if it were nothing. “Oh, in the old day popes were bad, we all know that…” as if that means they can just, essentially, be ignored unless they made an ex cathedra statement.

And yet the “recent popes” are untouchable because their agenda is still the party line…

Terribly confusing for traditionalists, and very disordered.

 

[Struggling]

the unfortunate trend John Paul II started with almost nonstop canonizations/beatifications

Well, yeah. He way over did it.

But I don’t mind a slightly increased pace.

I mean…there are about 10,000 Saints. About 3500 in the old Roman Martyrology alone (about 10 a day, though almost 30 could theoretically be listed for any given day…but many of those are more proper to the Eastern calendars)…

And yet, in the past 1000 years…only 400 canonizations until John Paul? Seems a little unbalanced, even if we consider the expectation that the Age of Martyrs will have a disproportionate amount.

John Paul went overboard, and I hope things slow down again. And I hope too that more of the Saints canonized are not merely people from the past two centuries…but that they instead reach back and get people who have been left “Blessed” forever…

But, though maybe this is just my own way of mentally dealing with it…I like to think of John Paul’s canonizations as “catching up” for a long spell of very few. Up to the tenth century…thousands of obscure abbots and bishops and monks from Gaul and Wales and such made it into the martyrology…and then suddenly…only a few hundred. The pace did suddenly change with the centralization of canonization.

Certainly JPII did go too fast, but I think a somewhat increased pace is okay, just given the numbers from the first millenium compared to the second.