Would you like the old Papal crowning ceremony brought back?

[Lycorth]

I wouldn’t mind at all seeing the traditional tiara brought back as a sign of just how grave the pope’s office is as well as a symbol of traditional revival.

However, as traditional as I am, it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other right now. There are more important traditions the Church needs to revive; the old crowning ceremony is nice but not essential, unlike our traditional attitudes towards the faith and the practice and defense of it.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

***I sem to recal that in the Old Testament Period of “JUDGES”, they first asked the Lord and then insisted from the Lord, a Kng. God told them why they should’nt ask for one; but grated there request;

Here is what happened:***

1Sam.15: [1] And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. [11] “I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry; and he cried to the LORD all night. [20] And Saul said to Samuel, "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, I have brought Agag the king of Am’alek, and I have utterly destroyed the Amal’ekites. [26] And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” [35] And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Good passage (Fr. Barron mentions it, quite frequently), but no one is advocating kingship, simply the ceremony.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Haha, Padre Juan and Padre Tomas are both O.P. I actually didn’t know there were more than one… I should use Cisneros from now on, in my examples.

All right, but I could have sworn that the latter was a Franciscan, with the Cardinal and the Inquisitor being Dominicans.

 

[Lycorth]

Good passage (Fr. Barron mentions it, quite frequently), but no one is advocating kingship, simply the ceremony.

Indeed. Whether or not the old crowning ceremony should be restored has nothing to do with considering the pope a king. It is sad how much the humanistic spirit of Protestantism has infected the modern Church to the degree that we shun our own past and are ashamed of it.

Practical reasons alone should guide the matter, not wholly misplaced fears of making the pope into a king. As a poster earlier wisely stated, the Church Christ gave us is not a democracy.

 

[Tsuwano]

Like I said, ‘Would you do away with the miter, as well?’

The modern world finds many of our symbols incomprehensible. Why do away with it?

If they still had the ceremony, they would have the announcers on CNN/FOX/&c. explaining the ritual to everyone, giving its history, making us look good. It would give non-Catholics a reason to be interested in our faith, and more.

No, I wouldn’t do away with the Bishop’s miter unless the miter became a symbol of something associated in the public mind with something we, as a Church, do not wish to represent us. It is true that the modern world finds many of our symbols incomprehensible, but the problem is when we, ourselves, find our symbols incomprehensible. I think this is the case with the papal crowning ceremony. The fact that so many differing opinions about the ceremony are appearing on this thread is proof of this. Go into the average parish and ask the folks there what the meaning of the papal crowning ceremony is and I’m sure you’ll get a variety of contradictory responses. This means the symbol does not work. Others have said that opposition to the crowning ceremony somehow reveals a creaping Protestantism at work in the Church. I think this is nonsense considering that Protestant kings and queens often used their own crowning ceremonies as signs of their spiritual control over the churches in their kingdoms. A crowning ceremony, in my mind, is more closely associated with Protestantism than Catholicism.

 

[Tsuwano]

Indeed. Whether or not the old crowning ceremony should be restored has nothing to do with considering the pope a king. It is sad how much the humanistic spirit of Protestantism has infected the modern Church to the degree that we shun our own past and are ashamed of it.

Practical reasons alone should guide the matter, not wholly misplaced fears of making the pope into a king. As a poster earlier wisely stated, the Church Christ gave us is not a democracy.

Practical reasons should indeed guide the matter concerning the crowning of the Pope. This is why the ceremony has been placed aside. Practical reasons did guide the matter.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

No, I wouldn’t do away with the Bishop’s miter unless the miter became a symbol of something associated in the public mind with something we, as a Church, do not wish to represent us. It is true that the modern world finds many of our symbols incomprehensible, but the problem is when we, ourselves, find our symbols incomprehensible. I think this is the case with the papal crowning ceremony. The fact that so many differing opinions about the ceremony are appearing on this thread is proof of this. Go into the average parish and ask the folks there what the meaning of the papal crowning ceremony is and I’m sure you’ll get a variety of contradictory responses. This means the symbol does not work. Others have said that opposition to the crowning ceremony somehow reveals a creaping Protestantism at work in the Church. I think this is nonsense considering that Protestant kings and queens often used their own crowning ceremonies as signs of their spiritual control over the churches in their kingdoms. A crowning ceremony, in my mind, is more closely associated with Protestantism than Catholicism.

The Church is not a democratic institution. ‘Conciliar’, yes; ‘democratic’, no. This might be a hard thing to swallow, but Truth cannot be legislated… only revealed.

Your argument would basically cede the Church’s ability to correct the opinions of its flock. This, under its sacramental character, is one of its greatest strengths as an institution.

If a symbol of the Church has been corrupted by propagandists (in this case, by anti-clericals, Freemasons and Protestants), is it not our responsibility to stand against this current, and see to it that this particular symbol is rehabilitated? Or have we, as a Church. left the business of defending Truth, because it is no longer profitable (as when the dioceses sold all of their hospitals to buy hospices and other, more profitable, ventures)?

Moreover, how many on this thread have actually seen a Papal coronation. Exactly.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

No, I wouldn’t do away with the Bishop’s miter unless the miter became a symbol of something associated in the public mind with something we, as a Church, do not wish to represent us. It is true that the modern world finds many of our symbols incomprehensible, but the problem is when we, ourselves, find our symbols incomprehensible. I think this is the case with the papal crowning ceremony. The fact that so many differing opinions about the ceremony are appearing on this thread is proof of this. Go into the average parish and ask the folks there what the meaning of the papal crowning ceremony is and I’m sure you’ll get a variety of contradictory responses. This means the symbol does not work. Others have said that opposition to the crowning ceremony somehow reveals a creaping Protestantism at work in the Church. I think this is nonsense considering that Protestant kings and queens often used their own crowning ceremonies as signs of their spiritual control over the churches in their kingdoms. A crowning ceremony, in my mind, is more closely associated with Protestantism than Catholicism.

Also, you do make a somewhat valid point in your counterexample of the dual kingship of Protestant kings. But it is a strange and ironic fact that Protestant nations–early in modern era, the fanatics of progress and local prerogative against central authority (even theological authority)–became the very most reactionary in defending the ‘beams in their own eyes’… and also some of the few nations to retain their (nominal-)constitutional monarchies. Strange, eh?

But still, the Protestant nations hosted all sorts of ideological riffraff, historically, and came to be the sole protector of many fifth columns of anti-clericalists in Catholic nations. Paradoxical but true. Nobody said the Protestants, in their plurality, have to be right.

 

[Tsuwano]

The Church is not a democratic institution. ‘Conciliar’, yes; ‘democratic’, no. This might be a hard thing to swallow, but Truth cannot be legislated… only revealed.

Your argument would basically cede the Church’s ability to correct the opinions of its flock. This, under its sacramental character, is one of its greatest strengths as an institution.

If a symbol of the Church has been corrupted by propagandists (in this case, by anti-clericals, Freemasons and Protestants), is it not our responsibility to stand against this current, and see to it that this particular symbol is rehabilitated? Or have we, as a Church. left the business of defending Truth, because it is no longer profitable (as when the dioceses sold all of their hospitals to buy hospices and other, more profitable, ventures)?

Moreover, how many on this thread have actually seen a Papal coronation. Exactly.

My argument does not “cede the Church’s ability to correct the opinions of its flock.” The Church has every right to insist on an orthodox interpretation of faith and practice, but it doesn’t follow that the Church must insist on particular interpretations of symbols in every instance, especially if those symbols are not essential to the practice and understanding of our faith. I do not see how bringing back the papal coronation is about defending the truth of our faith and it certainly isn’t essential to it. I wouldn’t agree that this particular symbol, the coronation of a Pope, has been corrupted by anti-clericals, Freemasons and Protestants, as much as it has simply been rendered meaningless by the rise of parliaments and other institutions which challenge and limit the power of hereditary monarchs. As you say, the Church is not a democracy, but it still doesn’t follow that the Pope should utilize the ceremonies of monarchs or potentates to underscore his authority under Christ. The crucifix, the pallium, the bishop’s crozier and the present ceremonies of announcing the pontificate of a new Pope are strong and complete within themselves to mark the Church and the Papacy as special and unique institutions in the modern world.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

Yes, bring back the crowning ceremony.

The Church is not a democracy, and so any attempt to make it look more like one is an exercise in obfuscation. The Church is a temporal monarchy in many respects, where the King of the nation would manage the day to day affairs, the King in Rome managed the temporal affairs.

 

[ciero]

Good passage (Fr. Barron mentions it, quite frequently), but no one is advocating kingship, simply the ceremony.

Why have the ceremony without the kingship? Just more POMP?

 

[JohnSanzone5]

Why have the ceremony without the kingship? Just more POMP?

Our Pope is better than a king, and performs a different function than one. A simple clarification of roles and definitions, and half of the arguments in this thread are rendered defunct.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Our Pope is better than a king, and performs a different function than one. A simple clarification of roles and definitions, and half of the arguments in this thread are rendered defunct.

Exactly, he is Rex Regis in Terris et Pontifex Maximus. Christ is God, and the Pope is His chief mortal assistant.

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes, bring back the crowning ceremony.

The Church is not a democracy, and so any attempt to make it look more like one is an exercise in obfuscation. The Church is a temporal monarchy in many respects, where the King of the nation would manage the day to day affairs, the King in Rome managed the temporal affairs.

The Church is not a monarchy. It is a community of believers. The Pope is not a king. He is a shepherd.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

The Church is not a monarchy. It is a community of believers. The Pope is not a king. He is a shepherd.

One man at the top who carries Divine Right, given his authority from God himself. What do you call that system?

 

[Califman831]

One man at the top who carries Divine Right, given his authority from God himself. What do you call that system?

amen, Its high time we return to our traditions and remember that a kingdom is not a democracy. God bless the Pope.

 

[boatbearer]

One man at the top who carries Divine Right, given his authority from God himself. What do you call that system?

The man is called the “Vicar of Christ on Earth.” In the plainer terms of Pope John Paul II he’s “the servant of the servants of Christ.” The pope is assuredly not a “king” and it would be distasteful to try to push him DOWN into such a secular category. Leave the crowns in the museums and displays where they belong…

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

The man is called the “Vicar of Christ on Earth.” In the plainer terms of Pope John Paul II he’s “the servant of the servants of Christ.” The pope is assuredly not a “king” and it would be distasteful to try to push him DOWN into such a secular category. Leave the crowns in the museums and displays where they belong…

Monarchy is not a secular category at all.

There was a reason that the Pope had temporal authority to crown kings, long ago. Napoleon wanted to be crowned by the Pope in order to defend his legitimacy. The King held Divine Right, and the Pope crowned the King to show this truth. So, Monarchy is an inherently religious institution, given legitimacy by God’s instrument on Earth, the Church.

The Pope is not a king, per se, but he still carries immense authority, and the crowning ceremony indicated that the Pope carried more authority than the kings.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Monarchy is not a secular category at all.

There was a reason that the Pope had temporal authority to crown kings, long ago. Napoleon wanted to be crowned by the Pope in order to defend his legitimacy. The King held Divine Right, and the Pope crowned the King to show this truth. So, Monarchy is an inherently religious institution, given legitimacy by God’s instrument on Earth, the Church.

The Pope is not a king, per se, but he still carries immense authority, and the crowning ceremony indicated that the Pope carried more authority than the kings.

I don’t believe this argument necessarily leads to the conclusion you’ve reached, ie, that monarchy is an inherently religious institution. In the OT, Israel complained to Samuel, “Give us a king like the nations around them.” Samuel didn’t want to do so, but God directed that he should, saying that it was He (God) that Israel was rejecting, not Samuel. Monarchy existed as an institution prior to the theocracy of the judges of Israel, which I would reckon to be similar to the papacy (save that there is a formal election process for the papacy). The monarchy of Israel (and latter of Judah) seemed largely problematic, except for a few rare monarchs.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

I don’t believe this argument necessarily leads to the conclusion you’ve reached, ie, that monarchy is an inherently religious institution. In the OT, Israel complained to Samuel, “Give us a king like the nations around them.” Samuel didn’t want to do so, but God directed that he should, saying that it was He (God) that Israel was rejecting, not Samuel. Monarchy existed as an institution prior to the theocracy of the judges of Israel, which I would reckon to be similar to the papacy (save that there is a formal election process for the papacy). The monarchy of Israel (and latter of Judah) seemed largely problematic, except for a few rare monarchs.

Romans 13:1-7

1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. 3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. 5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. 7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.