Would you like the old Papal crowning ceremony brought back?

[Onegin]

Victorious responded to the question well. When I say that I wish the Papal States were brought back, I’m saying that I wish they still existed, not that I’m not literally advocating that Rome should attempt to forcibly take them back or anything.

(At least not right now).

As for the Tiara itself, I’ll add to the previous comments and say that I reject the idea that its sole purpose was tied to the existence of the Papal States. The Tiara represented the authority of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, Papal States or not. I won’t go so far as to openly claim that Rome caved to modern sentiment in ending its use, but I will say that modern sentiment shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not the Pope chooses to wear the Papal Tiara or not. Such things are beyond the comprehension of the secular world anyway.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Although I do like it, it really has no place during these times For non-Catholics and some Catholics, it shows that the Pope might be “power hungry” even today the Vatican is criticize because of all the “riches” it contains. I am glad that it was taken out, and would rather see someone like JP2 talking to a very poor sick man, then see the Pope in his office wearing the crown. Again I like the image, but at this point in time it just doesn’t fit.

Plus, I highly doubt any pope want’s to be wearing the crown when Jesus returns as the King of Kings

But do not forget that the Pontiff is sovereign of an actual state, so why should not he be entitled to wear a crown of some sort(with Cardinals being the Vatican’s spiritual nobility, so why should not they have galeri and the cappa magna, as British peers have coronets and elaborate robes?). Such formal articles of clothings would not be used all of time anyway; therefore, Popes could still have many moments of humility. So, obviously, I would like for the tiara be used again.

 

[Young_Thinker]

It looks like a beehive.

I read that Paul VI intended to sell it(at an auction?) with the proceeds going to charity. However, Cardinal Spellman persuaded the Pope to let the U.S.C.C. purchase it. So, I believe that it is now in the cathedral of the Archdiocese of Washington. If any future Pope decides to use the tiara, he would probably have a new one made.

 

[Victorious]

But do not forget that the Pontiff is sovereign of an actual state, so why should not he be entitled to wear a crown of some sort(with Cardinals being the Vatican’s spiritual nobility, so why should not they have galeri and the cappa magna, as British peers have coronets and elaborate robes?). Such formal articles of clothings would not be used all of time anyway; therefore, Popes could still have many moments of humility. So, obviously, I would like for the tiara be used again.

Since humility has come up, let’s take the opportunity to be clear on the nature of humility. To despise the pomp and finery and honor that go along with an office is one thing; to accept the office but refuse its accoutrements is something else. The tiara was not placed on a Pope’s head for his own sake, but to honor his office, and thereby to honor Him Who created the office. The same with richly embroidered vestments or miters, or bejeweled pectoral crosses and crosiers. These are all honors bestowed on the office, not on the man. If a Pope refuses to put on the vestments, or wear the mitre, or carry the crosier when the occasion calls for it, is he really being humble? Or is he just refusing to carry his cross, placing his own desires ahead of the demands of his position?

To humble yourself is humility; to humble something or someone other than yourself is not humility.

 

[Bran_Stark]

For what my Protestant opinion is worth, as a staunch monarchist I would love to see the papal coronation revived. Christ is King of kings - and thus He needs kings to serve under Him!

 

[Young_Thinker]

Since humility has come up, let’s take the opportunity to be clear on the nature of humility. To despise the pomp and finery and honor that go along with an office is one thing; to accept the office but refuse its accoutrements is something else. The tiara was not placed on a Pope’s head for his own sake, but to honor his office, and thereby to honor Him Who created the office. The same with richly embroidered vestments or miters, or bejeweled pectoral crosses and crosiers. These are all honors bestowed on the office, not on the man. If a Pope refuses to put on the vestments, or wear the mitre, or carry the crosier when the occasion calls for it, is he really being humble? Or is he just refusing to carry his cross, placing his own desires ahead of the demands of his position?

To humble yourself is humility; to humble something or someone other than yourself is not humility.

Precisely; I appreciate your clarification. As you seem to have just implied, there is also a humility of spirit that is not dependent upon outside appearances.

 

[Onegin]

Precisely; I appreciate your clarification. As you seem to have just implied, there is also a humility of spirit that is not dependent upon outside appearances.

Also, we should remember that many Popes did not want the “trappings” that came with the Papacy but they humbly accepted them as part of the holy office.

A wonderful example of this humility is Pope St. Pius X who really did not want to be elected Pope at all! It is said that when it was finally announced that he had gained sufficient votes to be elected, he bent his head, broke into tears, and whispered, “Fiat voluntas tua” (Thy will be done).

It was also this Saintly Pope who said, “I was born poor, I lived poor and I will die poor.” And yet he wore the Papal Tiara. The trappings of the Papacy are not about the Pope as a person, they are about his office as the previous posters so accurately noted.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Also, we should remember that many Popes did not want the “trappings” that came with the Papacy but they humbly accepted them as part of the holy office.

A wonderful example of this humility is Pope St. Pius X who really did not want to be elected Pope at all! It is said that when it was finally announced that he had gained sufficient votes to be elected, he bent his head, broke into tears, and whispered, “Fiat voluntas tua” (Thy will be done).

It was also this Saintly Pope who said, “I was born poor, I lived poor and I will die poor.” And yet he wore the Papal Tiara. The trappings of the Papacy are not about the Pope as a person, they are about his office as the previous posters so accurately noted.

Indeed.

 

[Lujack]

I say do it. It would annoy the right sort of people.

The Catholic Church is not (as far as I’m aware), never has been (as far as I’m aware), and hopefully never will be (as far as I’m concerned) of trying to “annoy the right sort of people”.

 

[Victorious]

The Catholic Church is not (as far as I’m aware), never has been (as far as I’m aware), and hopefully never will be (as far as I’m concerned) of trying to “annoy the right sort of people”.

As long as we’re doing the right thing, we don’t need to try. It just happens.

 

[Lujack]

Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? The Papal States were there first. The Church did not steal the territory from Italy; Italy stole it from the Church. In what sense was Pius IX not justified in trying to defend that which had been entrusted to him? On the contrary: he would have been most blameworthy. And the Italian government’s actions were blameworthy, even though now, in the after-light, we can clearly see that it was obviously God’s permissive will that the Church lose the Papal States, except for that small remnant she still retains.

I’d disagree with that. I mean, based on the feeble support that the populace of the Papal States gave to the Pope, who was primarily forced to rely on the foreigners, albeit devout and courageous foreigners, of the Papal Zouaves, it was evident that the people who lived within the Papal States wanted to be part of Italy. And by the 1800’s, the Papal States were generally very poorly run. The job of the Pope is to run the Church, not to run a physical kingdom, and it was probably good for the health of the Church that it lost the albatross of having to try to administer a kingdom at the same time that it was trying to run a religious institution.

Of course, there was also Pius’s badly missed chance to become a hero to all the people of Italy in 1848; he could have become the leader of Catholic constitutionalists, isolated the radicals, and become the spiritual leader of a united Italy. There never would have been a war of Italy vs. the Papal States if Pius IX had done a better job in 1848.

Although Pius was excellent at many things, diplomacy, foreign policy, and running a government were not among them. And that’s a prime example of why its a good thing that the Papal States are gone; it requires talents that lie outside the purview of the Pope’s primary mission.

 

[Lujack]

As long as we’re doing the right thing, we don’t need to try. It just happens.

But we don’t do things to try and annoy people, especially since we want them to become Catholics. It would be an incredibly stupid, short-sighted, and mean-spirited reason to bring back the Papal tiara.

 

[Lujack]

For what its worth, I’m opposed to bringing back the papal tiara. It had its day and served its purpose, but it isn’t worth the effort and explaining that would need to be done. And yes, there would have to be effort and explaining put into it. The Catholic Church is deeply tried to tradition and Tradition, but it doesn’t do things “just because”, it does things with a commemorative or pastoral (I know you all hate the word, but it has a meaning, and it is an important) or educational purpose. In order for the papal tiara to accomplish any of that, a tremendous amount of explaining would need to be done (and much of it would be garbled by the media anyway), and it would take energy away from so many more important things which can be explained more easily; for example, the return of altar rails, or a concerted effort to improve Catholic architecture. Why fight for the papal tiara at such a cost?

 

[MarineGuy]

In the Eastern rites, all of their bishops wear crowns/tiaras. I think it’s a beautiful, meaningful tradition that was sadly done away with like so many other things were after Vatican II. Bring it back!

 

[Onegin]

Why fight for the papal tiara at such a cost?

Why fight for any of the “trappings” of Catholicism? There’s explanation required for the Bishop’s Mitre and Crozier, should we get rid of them as well? Have they served their now outdated purpose?

Again I must ask, who cares what the media and the secular world think? Why should we judge what the Church should do or not do by how much “explanation” - which sounds a lot like justification to me sometimes - is required?

What is the cost involved? The disdain of the secular world and the media? The Church already has that!

 

[Victorious]

But we don’t do things to try and annoy people, especially since we want them to become Catholics. It would be an incredibly stupid, short-sighted, and mean-spirited reason to bring back the Papal tiara.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the by-products of doing the right thing. St. Paul, at any rate, must not have thought so:
**
…if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing, you will heap burning coals upon his head.**

Romans 12:20
​

 

[Lujack]

Why fight for any of the “trappings” of Catholicism? There’s explanation required for the Bishop’s Mitre and Crozier, should we get rid of them as well? Have they served their now outdated purpose?

Of course not. But the Bishop’s Mitre and Crozier serve their symbolic purpose very well; people understand what they mean. If the tiara is meant to serve a symbolic purpose, and nobody understands its symbolism, then it fails.

Again I must ask, who cares what the media and the secular world think? Why should we judge what the Church should do or not do by how much “explanation” - which sounds a lot like justification to me sometimes - is required?

The Church doesn’t just do things to do them, it does them to teach, educate, and inspire the people, and give greater glory to God. If the Papal Tiara is so misunderstood that it fails to teach, educate, and inspire, and there are other ways to give greater glory to God, why use it?

What is the cost involved? The disdain of the secular world and the media? The Church already has that!

Why would you want to spend time arguing over the papal tiara and take energy away from greater issues?

 

[Lujack]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the by-products of doing the right thing. St. Paul, at any rate, must not have thought so:
**
…if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing, you will heap burning coals upon his head.**

Romans 12:20
​

Oh, come on. You’re totally twisting the meaning of what St. Paul said, and what you’re arguing for is actually the reverse, that something is the right thing to do because it annoys the “right sort of people”, not that it annoys “the right sort of people” because it is the right thing to do.

And what’s enjoyable about other people’s anger? Isn’t it saddening that they can’t see the beauty of the Church? Or are we supposed to act like the Phelpsites, and rejoice when others go down the wrong path?

 

[ChurchTorch]

Since humility has come up, let’s take the opportunity to be clear on the nature of humility. To despise the pomp and finery and honor that go along with an office is one thing; to accept the office but refuse its accouterments is something else. The tiara was not placed on a Pope’s head for his own sake, but to honor his office, and thereby to honor Him Who created the office. The same with richly embroidered vestments or miters, or bejeweled pectoral crosses and crosiers. These are all honors bestowed on the office, not on the man. If a Pope refuses to put on the vestments, or wear the mitre, or carry the crosier when the occasion calls for it, is he really being humble? Or is he just refusing to carry his cross, placing his own desires ahead of the demands of his position?

To humble yourself is humility; to humble something or someone other than yourself is not humility.

Just keep in mind that having the Pope wear/hold those accouterments is the work of man, not the work of God.

Further, if a Pope quietly refuses to carrying a crosier but instead adds a pastoral staff to his outfitting (which has happened) I see no problem with that.

 

[ChurchTorch]

In the Eastern rites, all of their bishops wear crowns/tiaras. I think it’s a beautiful, meaningful tradition that was sadly done away with like so many other things were after Vatican II. Bring it back!
http://gdb.rferl.org/10905F35-20B6-49A9-8E38-7B2F6E29F50B_mw800_mh600.jpg

Note true. While the crown-wearer in your photo is the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (Greek Orthodox) many Eastern Catholic bishops and abbots still wear crowns. My Byzantine Catholic bishop (Bp. Gerald Dino) certainly does:

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Dino, Bishop Gerald Nicholas.jpg
VC2 had absolutely zero impact in the East with regard to the liturgy and ancilliary issues except for one thing. The Eastern churches were encouraged to jettison the Latin Rite traditions (“latinizations”) that were often forced upon them by Latin Rite metropolitans here in the USA. One such latinization – the celibate priesthood is quietly going away only now in the USA for those Eastern Catholic churches that allow their priests to be married.

When I watch a papal event on TV and see a handful of crowns in a sea of mitres it reminds me just how much closer to secular gov’t the Eastern side of the Church has been historically.