Would you like the old Papal crowning ceremony brought back? - Page 5

Victorious · #61 Apr 19, '10, 7:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lujack

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?

Actually, I made a distinction that you are failing to make: a distinction between causing annoyance as the primary motive for doing something, and annoyance as a secondary result of doing the right thing. I am talking about the latter. I think the person who originally made the comment about annoying the right people was also talking about the latter. You are conflating the two.

Lujack · #62 Apr 19, '10, 7:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorious

Actually, I made a distinction that you are failing to make: a distinction between causing annoyance as the primary motive for doing something, and annoyance as a secondary result of doing the right thing. I am talking about the latter. I think the person who originally made the comment about annoying the right people was also talking about the latter. You are conflating the two.

Now how am I to conclude that Layman was talking about the latter when he didn't mention anything else in his post?

And I'll ask you again: why should we enjoy causing annoyance in the first place? If we're doing the right thing, we shouldn't care if people are upset, but on the other hand, why should we enjoy it, especially since our ultimate goal should always their conversion?

Victorious · #63 Apr 19, '10, 7:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lujack

And I'll ask you again: why should we enjoy causing annoyance in the first place? If we're doing the right thing, we shouldn't care if people are upset, but on the other hand, why should we enjoy it, especially since our ultimate goal should always their conversion?

If you seriously have to ask that question, no amount of explanation will satisfy you.

Lujack · #64 Apr 19, '10, 9:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victorious

If you seriously have to ask that question, no amount of explanation will satisfy you.

Is that supposed to be some kind of a declaration of victory? And why did you ignore the first part of my post?

Tsuwano · #65 Apr 19, '10, 9:34 pm

No, I don't want to see a return of the papal crowning ceremony. It's unnecessary, distracting, and, in my opinion, no longer models the vision the Church has of itself in the modern world.

Hesychios · #66 Apr 20, '10, 2:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

The eastern bishops wear crowns and omophorions because they are bishops. It may be that the bishops of Rome started wearing crowns after the Byzantine conquest of Italy, when Popes received their appointments from Ravenna (worth checking into).

I would like the idea of bringing back the Papal tiara if it was for every Latin Catholic bishop to wear. I don't think it requires a special crowning ceremony.

JohnSanzone5 · #67 Apr 20, '10, 11:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lujack

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.

Your arguments seem a bit dated in several respects. Its committing a fundamental error to reject the Papal ceremony on the grounds that it is 'unpopular', 'runs contrary to what the Church means to present itself as', &c.

A significant reason for the unrest you mentioned in the passage I am quoting from were the ideological currents of republican nationalism (an umbrella term for an entire array of political fallacies then in vogue) and anti-clericalism (a strange phenomenon present in almost every Catholic nation.

It is wrong to assume for these ideologies, over a century later, when they have been almost universally discredited and... the people understanding that the nation-state has failed to provide an integral cultural-religious-social life for them, look elsewhere. Often, they look to non-native religions like Islam and Buddhism, because they are bold enough to shamelessly push their traditions forward. Even though the Pope Pious IX did 'miss' his opportunity to become a nationalist hero, still, this is the universal Church.

He did the right thing, and remained above republican nationalism (and the Freemason movement, as did later Popes), as this would have infected our Church, and part of us would die when republican nationalism (as all ideologies do) withered and became anachronistic. And even though he 'missed' his chance, the Italian people still have considerable reverence for their the Church. People are fickle.

There are severe disadvantages of the Pope's present status as 'prisoner in Rome' and head of only a spiritual organization. 'The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls: The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe' by Paolo Prodi addresses how the temporal power of the Church only began to truly atrophy in the period directly after the Protestant Reformation, when the Church--rightly so--chose to develop its spiritual nature before its temporal nature. Nevertheless, I would still make the argument that the Church has a right to some--if not a great deal--of temporal power.

Its along the lines of rejecting cassocks in favor of clerical suits for our priests: this happened because there was social pressure to 'modernize' the outward forms the Church took, even in spite or ignorance of the essential nature of these practices. What I mean by this is: even though the clerical suit helps the priest 'fit in' with his flock, he is still not a middle manager, he is a priest. You can attempt to narrow this gap between clergyman and parishioner, but it is at the detriment of both.

In short, the Pope should receive his crown. The anti-monarchists amongst us now, are far and few between. When we pay reverence to our spiritual leader, so will the world.

Hesychios · #68 Apr 21, '10, 2:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

A significant reason for the unrest you mentioned in the passage I am quoting from were the ideological currents of republican nationalism (an umbrella term for an entire array of political fallacies then in vogue) and anti-clericalism (a strange phenomenon present in almost every Catholic nation.

It is wrong to assume for these ideologies, over a century later, when they have been almost universally discredited and...

I don't think republican nationalism has been discredited at all. Perhaps it deserves another thread but I am interested in your reasons for making the assertion.

Anti-clericalism is generally traceable to the common perception of clerical abuse. It may not be justified, or may not be justified to the extent that it is perceived, but it becomes a commonly held assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

... the people understanding that the nation-state has failed to provide an integral cultural-religious-social life for them, look elsewhere. Often, they look to non-native religions like Islam and Buddhism, because they are bold enough to shamelessly push their traditions forward. Even though the Pope Pious IX did 'miss' his opportunity to become a nationalist hero, still, this is the universal Church.

The Papal monarchy in actuality was not a valid Catholic religious tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

There are severe disadvantages of the Pope's present status as 'prisoner in Rome' and head of only a spiritual organization.

Not "only" or "merely" the head of a spiritual organization. Is he the Pope or isn't he? ... you make it seem like that's not good enough.

I would hardly think of him as a prisoner. It would be difficult to make that claim with a straight face at any time, even before the Vatican City state was gifted to the Pope by Mussilini

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

'The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls: The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe' by Paolo Prodi addresses how the temporal power of the Church only began to truly atrophy in the period directly after the Protestant Reformation, when the Church--rightly so--chose to develop its spiritual nature before its temporal nature. Nevertheless, I would still make the argument that the Church has a right to some--if not a great deal--of temporal power.

This 'temporal power' was the source of many unnecessary deaths through the ages, as Popes waged wars to extend them, and attacked nobles within them to bestow the properties on family members. The Papacy became a coveted 'plum' all the great families of central Italy wanted to pick, and many of them groomed young male relatives for the cloth and bought them Cardinal's hats in the hope of getting the big chair into the family. This is why it sometimes took two years to settle on a Pope, the back door wrangling and deal making between families toward a compromise candidate was painfully slow. It was a primary cause for many of the woes the church experienced over centuries, and brought justifiable criticism upon the church. It is a very black history.

And all of this because the Franks defeated the Lombards and the Frankish kings granted the city of Rome as a fief to the bishop of Rome. It's not like a deed dropped out of the sky.

And how could the king of the Franks be persuaded to give up this (at the time) swampy mosquito infested ruined old city? Because his most Catholic majesty of the Franks was presented with evidence that the city was earlier given to the bishops of Rome by Constantine, and thus craving to be seen as the legitimate heir to the holy Christian empire of the past he wanted to do the right thing for God by restoring the Pope's lawful property as bestowed by his 'predecessor'.

Except that the whole thing was a sham, a fake, a con job. The 'donation' of Constantine was a forgery, and the Papal States were the spawn of a massive lie.

The church, a good and holy thing itself, is much better off without the bad associations that come with the quest for temporal powers. It was a failed policy of the past, and with all of it's pretensions and imagery better left behind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

Its along the lines of rejecting cassocks in favor of clerical suits for our priests: this happened because there was social pressure to 'modernize' the outward forms the Church took, even in spite or ignorance of the essential nature of these practices.

I think you will find that priests stopped wearing cassocks because they did not like wearing cassocks. I never saw any policy directives to the effect that priests should stop wearing them.

The cassock was not that ancient or traditional anyway. It has more nostalgic value to modern people who remember the old movies of Bing Crosby and Gregory Peck playing priests. It became a fashion in imitation of a uniform Polish cavalrymen wore (perhaps 17th century ?? ). I don't know why the clergy started wearing them, but one can always blame the Jesuits

. Anyway, it's just not that old of a garment, and it is street wear, not a vestment.

Orthodox have a similar informal garment called a riassa. It is very plain, usually dark and commonly worn by eastern monks. Sometimes married clergy will wear white ones.

JohnSanzone5 · #69 Apr 21, '10, 3:12 am

Republican nationalism--in the West--is all but dead. There are no longer any forgotten ethnic-national groups clamoring for recognition and sovereignty. Its very difficult to whip people into a frenzy with a silly little tri-color and the old 'Liberty-Equality-Fraternity-andOurNationalValues' anymore. The only nationalist revivals that happen usually occur on the outermost margins of society, or in very isolated places. When these values do surface in modern discourse, they are usually being championed by some far-right group, which is no longer thoroughly 'republican nationalistic' in the classical, 1850s sense.

I differ on your interpretation of 19th century anti-clericalism. The evidence of abuse is scanty, and the official records we have of such abuse is largely venomous accounts by anti-Catholic periodicals. One can say: 'When there smoke, there is fire.', though I am inclined to believe--from much experience--that there can be a great deal of smoke, with very little fire. Nevertheless, here is where we diverge: I believe that the root causes of anti-clericalism are in the shift of which community commands one's identity: formerly, it was the parish-village-burgh level... after the emergence the values which sparked the French Revolution, one's identity increasingly coagulated around the nation-state. Monarchies and clerics were increasingly considered too-international, and therefore non-national.

I am not suggesting that the spiritual office of our Holy Father is insufficient or lacking in dignity: quite the contrary, it justifies everything. Without it, (politically) he would be a second-rate Italian prince (in the words of von Metternich).
When I used the term 'Prisoner of Rome', I meant in its mature, historical sense: not that he is a physical prisoner (duh, obv.), but that the Vatican (temporal) State has been shrunk to the confines of Rome... or even smaller.

I think that your treatment of the 'ills of the Vatican State, historically' is superficial: it makes too many assumptions to say that simply because the Pope had power, he exercised it poorly and involved the Catholic world in much bloodshed. At this point, it would have been feasible for the spiritual monarchy to exercise greater oversight over the temporal monarchy: I mean to say that--hypothetically--if the Vatican had scrupulously followed its spiritual mandate, it would have more delicately exercised its temporal power.
Now, in terms of the historical efficacy of the Vatican at one point possessing temporal power, let me give you an example of another church: the Russian Orthodox Church (its predecessor) was entirely co-opted under the rule of Peter I (the proto-autocrat), and in fact only lost power after that point. Dostoyevsky in the The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot accuses the RCC of sacrificing its hope in the Spiritual Kingdom, by making a pact with the Enemy for a temporal kingdom... But the truth remains: likely, because of God's will, the Vatican had temporal power during the Medieval period, and exercised this power (both to good ends, and bad ends): and emerged with Her liberty in tact. Several hundred years later, in both cases, when authoritarian powers threatened both states, the co-opted ROC had no ability to resist, and was forced into serving as a party organ. The RCC, on the other hand, allied itself with the House of Savoy and was able to play some part in resisting Nazism to the north, and Fascism within.

The moral of the story: 'Paradise sleeps in the shadow of swords' [robbed from Emerson, quoting the Muhammad]. The Church's temporal power protected her liberty during the worst times in the medieval, Renaissance, and early modern periods. We can judge all we want in retrospect, but those were difficult times for all of Europe.

I am not too familiar with the period in which you speak (Franks and Lombards, and the rest)--as this happened several times--but I assume you mean the Carolingian King Charlemagne, in 800 when he was crowned in Rome, on Easter? I read about the document purporting to be the 'Donation of Constantine', when it was proven a forgery. Regardless, there is still a near-1200 year tradition supporting Rome as the chief diocese, and Rome as the center of the Christian world. Even so, a righteous myth is better than a sordid truth. Bette reunite Christendom around the Bishop of Rome than let it fall piecemeal, as the Church did in Anatolia, and in Egypt, and in... the list goes on.

In short, you scrutinize the Church's history, find out that it was less than holy... that (surprise, surprise) there were backroom deals and 'black Italian clans' (noble families in Italy historiclaly allied with the Papacy)... 'surprise, surprise', again. But yet the Church still stands, and it does good now as it does then--preaching the Gospels in every corner of the known World. I don't see any reason to criticize this.

I understand your response to the de-cassock-ization of Western clergy (har, har, har, for Russian history aficionados)... and, frankly, I agree. I am familiar with the non-Christian origins of the cassock, and the plurality of other, equally legitimate clerical garb. Though, I don't think clergy should have any choice in the matter, and that the cassock is more aesthetically (and 'officially', in terms of office) becoming than the clerical suit. It is just too bourgeois, and moves the clergyman ever farther from the theological roots of his office ('the mystagogue' and 'alter Christ').

As for your diminutive description of the cassock/clerical suit as 'just street wear'... this is problematic, as our clergymen will inevitably be judged by the public, and our efforts at evangelization risk being undermined if we are 'just those Protestants who wear black'.

PJM · #70 Apr 22, '10, 3:51 pm

Quote:

=callmeChris;6526911]What are your views on the Papal Coronation? Would you like to see it brought back? I think the Pope looks good in the old liturgical regalia. What do you think?

http://www.restoredtraditions.com/im...us_X_tiara.jpg

http://www.salesians.org.uk/dbuk/images/rome340401a.jpg

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com...xii_62334a.jpg

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...8888/pioxd.jpg

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Rev...00_PiusXII.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../21/Pius_X.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HYmckVkkJz...opeLeoXIII.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HYmckVkkJz...-h/55725BE.JPG

The Pope is NOT Kng: Jesus Christ is!

JohnSanzone5 · #71 Apr 22, '10, 6:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

The Pope is NOT Kng: Jesus Christ is!

Yes, but certainly there are other kings and offices in this world besides our Lord's?

And why not honor the Holy Father, of all our leaders, as he reminds us of this truth: our Lord's Kingship is greatest?

Tsuwano · #72 Apr 22, '10, 7:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

Yes, but certainly there are other kings and offices in this world besides our Lord's?

And why not honor the Holy Father, of all our leaders, as he reminds us of this truth: our Lord's Kingship is greatest?

There are many ways to honor the Holy Father. Placing a crown on his head is not the only way or even the best way of honoring him, especially when such an act sends so many mixed signals to the world and overshadows the humility that one expects to see among the followers of Christ. I do not believe a crown on the head of the Holy Father does remind us that the Lord's kingship is greatest. I believe the simple staff of the shepherd does this.

JohnSanzone5 · #73 Apr 22, '10, 9:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuwano

There are many ways to honor the Holy Father. Placing a crown on his head is not the only way or even the best way of honoring him, especially when such an act sends so many mixed signals to the world and overshadows the humility that one expects to see among the followers of Christ. I do not believe a crown on the head of the Holy Father does remind us that the Lord's kingship is greatest. I believe the simple staff of the shepherd does this.

Actually, its not a crown, its a three-tiered tiara.

Pope John Paul II followed ascetic practices which would make Torquemada quake with anxiety. Papal pomp and self-purifying Christian humility are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, what other signs of 'worldly authority' would you dispense with? Is the miter too imposing, now? Next, the skull cap! Surely not.

Sonic · #74 Apr 22, '10, 9:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie5890

I do believe that the papal crown was donated to the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC and is there now.

That's only one of the papal tiaras. There have been several over the centuries, and they are kept at the Vatican.

The papal tiara is actually what the bishop's miters looked like before they were made to be folded. The number of crowns is usually depicted as three, but there are some Papal tiaras that have less.

Source: The 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia For school and Home - McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Edit: I read up a little about the symbolism of crowns...

The crown is a symbol of marriage as well as sovereignty. It is analogous to wedding rings, and crowns are used in the wedding ceremonies of the Eastern church.

The person crowned (pope, king, etc) is symbolically wedded to their kingdom and holds the same responsibility and commitment of a husband to his wife. It is quite a beautiful symbol when understood in it's proper context. For this reason, I would like to see the papal tiara return.

Tsuwano · #75 Apr 23, '10, 12:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSanzone5

Actually, its not a crown, its a three-tiered tiara.

Pope John Paul II followed ascetic practices which would make Torquemada quake with anxiety. Papal pomp and self-purifying Christian humility are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, what other signs of 'worldly authority' would you dispense with? Is the miter too imposing, now? Next, the skull cap! Surely not.

Crown, tiara . . . same church, different pew. It's a symbol of power which is often associated with earthly power, not heavenly or spiritual authority, and is limited in its symbolic meaning for those who are not of European origin. I'm not too concerned with Torquemada, though I do agree that "Papal pomp and self - purifying Christian humility are not mutually exclusive." It does, however, depend on the symbols being used and messages being expressed within the ceremony. I have nothing against the tiara as such. I just think it is a poor symbol, associated with many conflicting messages, which the modern world would find incomprehensible. A symbol which is incomprehensible is meaningless. As I stated in my previous post, I think a simple shepherd's crook and the crucifix are the most potent symbols of Christian authority we have. I would surely not dispense with these symbols, but the tiara ? Time has dispensed with it.