Here is an interesting piece. The blurb below accompanied an advertisement for a lecture at Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology on 24 October.
The Archbishop Gerety Lecture series presents Rev. Msgr. Raymond Kupke, Ph.D. as he discusses the ways NJ Catholicism helped lead to the following dramatic conciliar moment, and its subsequent impact on the life of the universal Church. On November 13, 1964, Pope Paul VI, in a dramatic gesture in the midst of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, walked to the altar of Saint Peter’s Basilica and laid his coronation tiara on the altar as a gift for the poor of the world. By the Holy Father’s own admission, he made this gesture in response to the words of a New Jersey layman, James Norris. Mr. Norris delivered his speech in an historic conciliar intervention, the only one at Vatican II by a layman, just one week earlier. All are welcome, admission is free and call-in registration is strongly encouraged.
The poor are still with us and the tiara is no only seen in museums.
Paul VI about to lay his tiara on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica at the end of the Second Vatican Council.
Loading ...
I have always viewed this cruel act as the formal repudiation by the Church of the European culture it created. There is a very sad picture of the Pope with Cardinal Ottaviani in cappa taking the tiara out of St. Peter’s. The beginning of the end for the holy traditions of our Church.
The tiara illustrated, by the way, is not the coronation tiara of Pope Paul, which is in Washington.
Wow, I didnt know he took it off to give to the poor, that is a very bad excuse and a loss of Catholic tradition. That wouldnt have helped anyone and is no excuse for selling off God’s treasures (Mat 26:6-13).
I was always of the impression he stopped wearing it now that the Imperalist Age (ie European nations setting up shop in third world countries) was coming to an end and he didnt want to appear Monarchical to African and Asian nations and such.
This tiara is in the Vatican private museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aventicus/581440923/in/set-72157600419874293/
Jeffry
The tiara did carry conotations of temporal power, but it also stood for much more which the Pope should never have renounced. The Vatican hadn’t had the Papal states for almost 100 years when Paul VI did that. If it was just a symbol of power, why was it retained for so long? Gregory the Great, who gave himself the title “servant of the servants of God” has always been portrayed wearing a tiara. It’s a symbol of the Papacy. It doesn’t even look like a crown. In fact, it looks more like an Eastern mitre.
Given that the tiara is a symbol of the popes’ temporal power and evolved during a time when popes were monarchs, is there any reason it should have been retained? Much of the Papal ceremonial was borrowed from the imperial court in Constantinople. But the Popes are no longer rulers, and a modern day coronation just wouldn’t make sense. Even if these things once symbolized something besides power, that meaning has been lost in the last 40 years.
I noticed immediately that the photo of the Triple Tiara was not Pope Paul VI’s. His was custom made of silver and shaped like a bullet and was lighter in weight. I wondered if he didn’t like how it turned out. If it was a “gift to the poor” why is it at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in the museum there? Interesting to note, most of the Popes have the Triple Tiara on their Coat of Arms. However, our beloved Pope Benedict XVI omitted it and has the mitre instead.
The tiara illustrated, by the way, is not the coronation tiara of Pope Paul, which is in Washington.
It looks like the Palatine tiara.
Paul VI’s tiara was kind of bullet-shaped.
Given that the tiara is a symbol of the popes’ temporal power…
Is that a given? Is the tiara a symbol of the pope’s monarchal and temporal power, or is it monarchal and temporal symbol that signifies his spiritual and ecclesiastical authority?
You may be right. The poor are still with us and the tiara may now be seen only in museums; but at least we now see just what a nice guy he really was. Just think how much of his life’s savings was spent to purchase that tiara in the first place.
I’m just curious here and not to well read on this…
How old is that Tiara that was given up in 1964?
How old is that Tiara that was given up in 1964?
Not very. It was given to Paul VI by the Archdiocese of Milan upon his election to the Papacy.
It is also ugly.
The coronation tiara is made of spun aluminum as a gift from the people of Milan to Pope Paul. It did not look too comfortable to wear…
How it got to the National Shrine was that Cardinal Spellman (I think) bought it and the Pope used the money to assist the people of Bangledesh after a typhoon or a tidal wave.
That was the script as I remembered it from my days as a tour guide at the National Shrine many moons ago
This is the Tiara of Paul VI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Pope_Paul_VI_Tiara_2.jpg
Remember, everyone, that any Pope could, if he wished, use the tiara from the moment he accepts the election.
I think I remember hearing that Benedict’s Coat of Arms doesn’t have the tiara because he wished to display the unique Munich mitre given to him by Paul VI.
But, from just a drawing, I can’t see what is unique about this mitre
I heard that the mitre that Bendedict first received from Paul VI was unique for Munich and that he wished to show this on his coat of arms.
But, from just a drawing, I can’t see anything unique about it
This is the Tiara of Paul VI
Ugly. I think Paul VI just wanted to get rid of it. ;-)
“If it was a “gift to the poor” why is it at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in the museum there?”
The tiara sits in a glass case next to a poor box, with a sign telling the story of the gift and asking folks to be similarly inspired and put money in the poor box.
“But the Popes are no longer rulers, and a modern day coronation just wouldn’t make sense.”
The Pope is still the absolute monarch of a very, very small country. Check this out:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vt.html
WAC
I was born in ’69 in Montreal. Paul VI’s act has been pretty much interpreted here (and most everywhere I’ve visited in the US and Canada) as an abdication.
No need to listen nowadays to Paul’s, or John Paul’s, or Benedict’s advice… unless you’d like to…
Sad… Sad… Sad…
What a beautiful scene that must have been, the act of a humble man, a servant of God. It reminds me of the scene in Revelation 4:9-11.
The true beauty of the papacy lies not in St. Peters\’s basilica (although that is beautiful, no doubt), nor in its former temporal power, but in the humble attitude of service, exemplified by the title \”Servant of the Servants of God\” and shown by our greatest popes including JPII, by which the popes imitate Christ and make his promise in Matt. 16 a reality.
I read somewhere that Paul VI’s tiara was very uncomfortable and used to give him a headache. I think that the tiara is ugly and much prefer the headgear of the Eastern Orthodox.
Fr Martin Fox – Thank you for that Father, and I second it. In my culture, that kind of mockery is still quite unacceptable. I’m rather neutral about this whole thing – I have never seen the tiara used in my lifetime, and I cannot say that my faith is any less for that. I love and support the TLM and attend it occasionally, while I prefer the Ordinary Form, albeit a more traditional celebration of the OF. I support the restoration of beauty and of the sacred – but like Pope Benedict, I distinguish between solemnity and triumphalism and I’m confident that in the end, this is the approach that is balanced enough to prevail and win over the most support.
In response to Father Z’s comment “The poor are still with us and the tiara is no[w] only seen in museums.”
– With respect, I don’t think that the Holy Father was naive enough to imply that poverty would be dealt a severe blow by relinquishing his tiara – it was rather a gesture of solidarity towards the poor by the successor of Peter, in a pontificate full of similar gestures, at a time when gestures like these were very important, and when people were far less cynical than they are now. With the luxury of hindsight, I suppose we can look back at this gesture and sneer at it.
I don’t care for the image Paul posted of our late holy father. I think criticism of the pope’s decisions is one thing, but mockery is not appropriate. What did St. Paul say? Let us outdo one another in showing respect? Can we not treat our late pope with respect?
Comment by Fr Martin Fox
Yes and No. On the one hand, he was the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter.
But on the other hand, there is little doubt that his papacy was a disaster, both internally (in the collapse of Catholic life and culture) and externally (in giving in to the Communists). Basically, he took too much for granted while letting his liberal buddies destroy the Church. Then he cried.
From my own personal standpoint, the policies of his papacy deprived me of my rights as a Catholic.
Should I respect him for all that? I think not.
BTW, the admonition of St Paul also applies to popes. And I think it can be argued that his actions as pope showed little respect for Catholic life.
Amen, RBrown. Folks, let’s not get our panties in a wad over a silly picture. Paul VI promulgated the new Mass, and ever since ain’t nuthin’ been right.
ALL: If nothing else, whatever his human faults, however we think he erred in his confidence in the liturgists, et al., we should thank God for Paul VI because of Humanae vitae.
While the pope is certainly a bishop, he is just as certainly more than a bishop. Some form of vesture would ideally be retained toexpres that fact.
As for Paul VI, his imprudence, capriciousness, and superficiality (not to mention his episcopal appointments)…that entire bizarre, ugly period is best simply forgotten.
While the pope is certainly a bishop, he is just as certainly more than a bishop. Some form of vesture would ideally be retained to express that reality.
As for Paul VI, his imprudence, capriciousness, and superficiality (not to mention his episcopal appointments)…that entire bizarre, ugly period is best simply forgotten.
Am I right I thinking that Frank Duff, layman founder of the Legion Of Mary, addressed the Council,- he was certainly present at it and received an ovation from the Council Fathers.Some of the comments are unjust to Pope Paul VI; he was a great Pope, the first since Peter to visit the Holy Land,as well as Africa, etc.. No man in history was so vilified as he was in the aftermath of Humanae Vitae. We all should re-read his Profession of Faith.His defence of Communion on the tongue was exemplary; however there were other dark forces at work, as he himself said. If you want culprits there are plenty to aim at, the many bishops, etc, who went overboard in enforcing unwanted reforms, and who threw out the baby with the bathwater.I\’m sure many of them now, like Dives, would be glad of just a drop of that water…
Paul,
Man, that’s creepy as all hell.
Not respectful.
WAC
Ken wrote, “If you want culprits there are plenty to aim at, the many bishops, etc, who went overboard in enforcing unwanted reforms, and who threw out the baby with the bathwater.
—–Yes, and there was Paul VI who did nothing about them. Much like the rest of the popes we’ve had thereafter. One wonders what they truly fear. I think they fear the fate of John Paul I. God save the courageous Benedict XVI!!
Ole Doc Farmer wrote, “As for Paul VI, his imprudence, capriciousness, and superficiality (not to mention his episcopal appointments)… that entire bizarre, ugly period is best simply forgotten.
—–Why should Paul VI’s behavior “best simply forgotten,” while we carry on with Hitler’s and Stalin’s, etc?
The more I read about Paul VI, the more I think he is among a long line of many to have fallen off the Hilary Clinton wagon.
P.S. I’ve tried to be distinctive about my name so to differentiate between myself and the myriad other Matts. ;)
The three rings on the tiara represent the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians who are living, the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven, and the Church Suffering (Ecclesia Penitens).
Jeffry
This laying down and donation to the United Nations was clearly a liberal political plan and a true scandal in the face of the Roman Catholic faithful. Even sadder is it to see how Cardinal Ottaviani – with a pale face – had to assist in this very insulting ceremony. Who the heck was Paul VI to be able to give away a tiara which was not his own, but of one of his predecessors, and which was donated by the faithful of the Rhineland to the previously reigning pontiff? Do you see how arrogant modernism is?
The Catholics and non-Catholics speaking about how this laying-off of the tiara and of gold etc. is favourable to the poor (which it is not, and those liberals and socialists themselves dare not donate their own large villas and cars for the poor), are like Judas Iscariot who called the use of valuable olive oil for the unction of Our Lord an excess and spoiling etc. “It should be used for the poor” “But he was a thieve” It is the same with communists, socialists, liberals let alone modernists who use this ridiculous claim of actually conserving and using a gift from others, to “do something for the poor”. The poor will be with us always, and it is not the lack of money whcih is the problem but the transport, the egoism of the fallen human race, the lack of charity. And politics. Including the UN.
Paul VI was the worst pope ever. Humanae Vitae is one dot of light. The only one. And he vowed he would never publish an encyclical again after the criticism. He was afraid of the world he sought to please. Humanae Vitae has weak points too: e.g. the inversion of the purposes of marriage. And please remember that Archbishop Montini and even Bishop Luciani (John Paul I) previously had been in favour of the use of artificial contraception.
Is that Cardinal Ottavani to Pope Paul VI’s right?
He doesn’t look too pleased…
Fr. Z.: Remember, everyone, that any Pope could, if he wished, use the tiara from the moment he accepts the election.
Very true. I hope that will happen soon. I also hope that the full papal household is reestablished soon just like the gendarmeria pontificia has been slowly returned to its former tradition and glory.
The pope’s temporal power is not over. As has been pointed out, he’s an absolute monarch of the Vatican state. But he’s more than that. Through his state he wields tremendous power and influence across the world; the Vatican regularly negotiates treaties and concordats with secular rulers across the world. Furthermore, he’s recognized at international law and protocol, as the senior monarch for all Catholic monarchies and strict rules apply vis-a-vis the relative honor of members of those monarchies (e.g. Belgium).
There is a reason for all this and there is a reason emperors wished to be crowned by the pope. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, but Caesar belongs to God. It is, I think, improper for the Church to retreat too much from its temporal role. Christian rule and Christian rulers (emperors, monarchs, and nobility) made Europe. What a dangerous time to be turning our back on history.
Fr Z.: “…we should thank God for Paul VI because of Humanae vitae.“
I think, more to the point, we should thank God for Humanae vitae. The pope can certainly err in matters of management, discipline, politics, but the one thing he can’t do is err in doctrine. I don’t think Paul VI could have done anything other than write Humanae vitae. I suppose he could have written nothing…
I have to wonder – if Benedict XVI was given the gift of a tiara, would it be accepted and worn as it should?
Michael,
I remember reading in one of these comment boxes that Benedict was given a tiara. Everyone gasped, and he handed it to one of his attendants to put it away forever. The cowboy hats? No problem.
Matthew Kennel,
Abandoning or altering traditions in light of your on understanding of what the Papacy should be if the most arrogant thing a Pope can do. When John Paul II refused to sit down when his fellow cardinals kissed his ring after his election in the Sistine Chapel, he was saying, “I know better than tradition.” And yet, this was praised as a sign of humility? It would have been far more humble to accept what had been given him, even if it made him feel uncomfortable. Tradition belongs to all of us, and it’s not for the Papacy to remodel at will.
I heard it was JPII, not Benedict, who was given the tiara. Funny how rumors start. I hold no weight to either since they both come from comment boxes.
As for Paul VI, his imprudence, capriciousness, and superficiality (not to mention his episcopal appointments)…that entire bizarre, ugly period is best simply forgotten.
Comment by Ole Doc Farmer
His policies were intended as detente with secular culture, secular politics (incl Marxism), and secular governments because he wanted to make the Vatican the clearing house for international politics. That is why from his papacy until the appointment of Bertone the Secretariat of State has been oriented toward external affairs (relations with states) rather than the internal affairs of the Church. NB: Cardinal Bertone’s remarks on becoming Sec of State.
Forgotten? Not yet. We are still living in the Montini Church. He took a Church in need of reform and Protestantized it. It will take years for it to recover.
Humanae Vitae is a good document, and Paul VI should be commended for promulgating it, The problem is that he didn’t enforce it: Dissenting theologians were allowed to continue in their dissent, and bishops were appointed who opposed it.
And according to the Memoirs of Cardinal Mindszenty, Paul VI was not a man of his word.
I his book, Liturgia e Bellezza: Nobilis Pulchritudo, Marini had this to say. This is Rocco Palma’s translation:
“For centuries, the mitre and tiara were the head-coverings used by the Roman Pontiff in liturigcal celebrations. Of particular historical interest is the mitre of Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) used in 1854 on the occasion of the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The use of the mitre is certainly more ancient than the use of the tiara. The first testament to the use of the mitre comes from the 11th century in the pontificate of St. Leo IX (1049-1054). Before then the bishops had no liturgical headdress. Already, however, in the second half of the 12th century the mitre was in the general use of all the bishops….
The tiara entered into liturgical use only at the start of the 17th century with Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). The tiara was conferred in a particular way at the solemn rite of the coronation of the new Pope and expressed itself above all in the symbol of the “triregno” the formula used in its imposition: “Father of Princes and Kings, Rector of the world, on earth Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.” In the three crowns of the tiara some have seen represented the power of the Father, the wisdom of the Son, the love of the Holy Spirit; also, the three theological virtues.
Pope Paul VI (1963-78) was the last Pontiff to be crowned with the tiara. In fact, the Pope renounced this sign of power to present greater evidence of the service to which the Successor of Peter is called in imitiating the example of the Lord Jesus who came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many (Matthew 20:28). In 1964, in accord with the Pontiff’s wishes, the tiara was sold and its profits given to the poor. It is now kept in the treasury of the basilica of the Immaculate Conception at Washington. [Rock’s Note: Paul VI’s tiara was not the traditional tiara of his predecessors, but a gift of the people of Milan to their former archbishop. The others are in the collection of the Vatican Museums.]
With Pope John Paul I (1978) came another modification of the rite of the Papal coronation, more opportunely called “The Initiation of the ministry of the Supreme Pastor.” From then onward, the Bishop of Rome uses solely the mitre, the typical and traditional headdress common to all the Bishops, to underscore the relationship of communion and of unity which links the Successor of Peter with the Episcopal College.
The tiaras remain, in truth, an expression of a sensibility bound to a particular historical period to a culture now surpassed, but it is also a testimony that the Church in the course of centuries has welcomed in itself the signs and proper expressions of diverse cultures to communicate among men a message of faith. The objects of the past, like the tiaras, must be considered with respect as expressions of diverse cultural moments, but also as a stimulus for the purification of the signs used in the Christian cult, in the best adapted way to communicate a message of faith to modern man.”
I suppose the same argument could me made against the use of Cappae Magnae, sandals, jewels, or anything else tha comes from a “culture now surpassed.” I find this a very convincing argument. Anyone care to answer it?
But on the other hand, there is little doubt that his papacy was a disaster, both internally (in the collapse of Catholic life and culture) and externally (in giving in to the Communists). Basically, he took too much for granted while letting his liberal buddies destroy the Church. Then he cried
Mr. Brown. There has not been one Ecumenical Council in our history that has not trailed in its wake all manner of mayhem, weirdness, strangeness, mini-schisms, heresies. Accrd to your standard, every single Pope reigning during those periods were, similarly, failures.
Here is Pope Benedict on Vatican Two.
+++++++++++++++++= begin quote +++++++++++++++++++++++
“We had such great hopes, but things proved to be more difficult…”
I, too, lived through Vatican Council II, coming to Saint Peter’s Basilica with great enthusiasm and seeing how new doors were opening. It really seemed to be the new Pentecost, in which the Church would once again be able to convince humanity. After the Church’s withdrawal from the world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it seemed that the Church and the world were coming together again, and that there was a rebirth of a Christian world and of a Church of the world and truly open to the world.
We had such great hopes, but in reality things proved to be more difficult. Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a “magna carta” of the Church’s path, very essential and fundamental.
But why did this happen? I would like to begin with an historical observation. The periods following a council are almost always very difficult. After the great Council of Nicaea – which is, for us, truly the foundation of our faith, in fact we confess the faith as formulated at Nicaea – there was not the birth of a situation of reconciliation and unity, as hoped by Constantine, the promoter of the great Council, but a genuinely chaotic situation of a battle of all against all.
In his book on the Holy Spirit, saint Basil compares the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea to a nighttime naval battle, in which no one recognizes another, but everyone is pitted against everyone else. It really was a situation of total chaos: this is how saint Basil paints in vivid colors the drama of the period following the Council of Nicaea.
50 years later, for the first Council of Constantinople, the emperor invited saint Gregory Nazianzen to participate in the council, and saint Gregory responded: No, I will not come, because I understand these things, I know that all of the Councils give rise to nothing but confusion and fighting, so I will not come. And he didn’t go.
So it is not now, in retrospect, such a great surprise how difficult it was at first for all of us to digest the Council, this great message. To imbue this into the life of the Church, to receive it, such that it becomes the Church’s life, to assimilate it into the various realities of the Church is a form of suffering, and it is only in suffering that growth is realized. To grow is always to suffer as well, because it means leaving one condition and passing to another.
And we must note that there were two great historic upheavals in the concrete context of the postconciliar period.
The first is the convulsion of 1968, the beginning – or explosion, I dare say – of the great cultural crisis of the West. The postwar generation had ended, a generation that, after seeing all the destruction and horror of war, of combat, and witnessing the drama of the great ideologies that had actually led people toward the precipice of war, had discovered the Christian roots of Europe and had begun to rebuild Europe with these great inspirations. But with the end of this generation there were also seen all of the failures, the gaps in this reconstruction, the great misery in the world, and so began the explosion of the crisis of Western culture, what I would call a cultural revolution that wants to change everything radically. It says: In two thousand years of Christianity, we have not created a better world; we must begin again from nothing, in an absolutely new way. Marxism seems to be the scientific formula for creating, at last, the new world.
In this – let us say – serious, great clash between the new, healthy modernity desired by the Council and the crisis of modernity, everything becomes difficult, like after the first Council of Nicaea.
One side was of the opinion that this cultural revolution was what the Council had wanted. It identified this new Marxist cultural revolution with the will of the Council. It said: This is the Council; in the letter the texts are still a bit antiquated, but behind the written words is this “spirit,” this is the will of the Council, this is what we must do. And on the other side, naturally, was the reaction: you are destroying the Church. The – let us say – absolute reaction against the Council, anticonciliarity, and – let us say – the timid, humble search to realize the true spirit of the Council. And as a proverb says: “If a tree falls it makes a lot of noise, but if a forest grows no one hears a thing,” during these great noises of mistaken progressivism and absolute anticonciliarism, there grew very quietly, with much suffering and with many losses in its construction, a new cultural passageway, the way of the Church.
And then came the second upheaval in 1989, the fall of the communist regimes. But the response was not a return to the faith, as one perhaps might have expected; it was not the rediscovery that the Church, with the authentic Council, had provided the response. The response was, instead, total skepticism, so-called post-modernity. Nothing is true; everyone must decide on his own how to live. There was the affirmation of materialism, of a blind pseudo-rationalistic skepticism that ends in drugs, that ends in all these problems that we know, and the pathways to faith are again closed, because the faith is so simple, so evident: no, nothing is true; truth is intolerant, we cannot take that road.
So: in these contexts of two cultural ruptures, the first being the cultural revolution of 1968 and the second the fall into nihilism after 1989, the Church sets out with humility upon its path, between the passions of the world and the glory of the Lord.
Along this road, we must grow with patience and we must now, in a new way, learn what it means to renounce triumphalism.
The Council had said that triumphalism must be renounced – thinking of the Baroque, of all these great cultures of the Church. It was said: Let’s begin in a new, modern way. But another triumphalism had grown, that of thinking: We will do things now, we have found the way, and on it we find the new world.
But the humility of the Cross, of the Crucified One, excludes precisely this triumphalism as well. We must renounce the triumphalism according to which the great Church of the future is truly being born now. The Church of Christ is always humble, and for this very reason it is great and joyful.
It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive also grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods – Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods – in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church’s catholicity, of the unanimity that grows in humility, and nonetheless is the true hope of the world.
And thus it seems to me that we must rediscover the great heritage of the Council, which is not a “spirit” reconstructed behind the texts, but the great conciliar texts themselves, reread today with the experiences that we have had and that have born fruit in so many movements, in so many new religious communities. I arrived in Brazil knowing how the sects are expanding, and how the Catholic Church seems a bit sclerotic; but once I arrived, I saw that almost every day in Brazil a new religious community is born, a new movement is born, and it is not only the sects that are growing. The Church is growing with new realities full of vitality, which do not show up in the statistics – this is a false hope; statistics are not our divinity – but they grow within souls and create the joy of faith, they create the presence of the Gospel, and thus also create true development in the world and society.
Thus it seems to me that we must learn the great humility of the Crucified One, of a Church that is always humble and always opposed by the great economic powers, military powers, etc. But we must also learn, together with this humility, the true triumphalism of the Catholicism that grows in all ages. There also grows today the presence of the Crucified One raised from the dead, who has and preserves his wounds. He is wounded, but it is in just in this way that he renews the world, giving his breath which also renews the Church in spite of all of our poverty. In this combination of the humility of the Cross and the joy of the risen Lord, who in the Council has given us a great road marker, we can go forward joyously and full of hope.
I read that Paul VI willed his sucessor to be crowned but John Paul I opted for a simple inauguration ceremony. Very controversial in 1978. John Paul II perhaps felt obligated to repeat this ceremony a few weeks later.
Humanae Vitae was promulgated despite Paul VI; an example of Infallibility. I think it was Cardinal Siri who said: “If the Church were not divine Vatican II would have buried Her”. The ‘ressurection’ of the Tridentine Rite is another sign of the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church and is with Her always.
Paul VI released an Apostolic Constitution in 1975 entitled “Romano Pontifici Eligendo” stating that his successor must be crowned. It seems that John Paul I didn’t want to obey this constitution.
Still the renouncement of the tiara is only a façade of what the internal situation of the Catholic was then and now – a renouncement of her patrimony and heritage in order to “open up the windows” and let the new air fill our lungs and inebriate us. Modernists always use the false Judas excuse of not having ceremony and pomp, in that money should be spent on the poor – as if the Catholic church does not do enough for the poor around the world, in comparison to other denominations and sects.
An interesting dossier on Paul VI appeared in 1998, when more ‘liberal-minded’ Cardinals such as Martini were calling for his beatification, written by Rev. Dr. Luigi Villa of Brescia. Very sad reading and it isn’t a suprise the Congregation for Saints closed the book on Paul VI’s beatification.
I don’t like the picture of Paul VI either, though must admit bursting out laughing when I clicked and it came up on the screen! : )
Paul VI was a decent man, but WOW did he make terrible mistakes as Pope. Abolishing the use of the tiara, the Papal court, the Tridentine Latin Mass, adopting the Novus Ordo, allowing 5 Protestant ministers and Annibale Bugnini to create the Novus Ordo, radical ecumenism, blessing Loberation Theology in 1968 in Medellin, Colombia which lead to the destruction of the Catholic Faith on the entire continent, etc., etc.
He was a good man, but really misguided in agenda. He listened to genuinely bad people. So did John Paul II.
Benedict XVI on the other hand, seems to be one who isn’t playing their game. And we can thank God for that. And for Him. God preserve Pope Benedict XVI for many years in health and vigour.
ALL: This is not a “beat up the Pope” opportunity.
If you are disgruntled with Paul VI, or any other Pope, pray for their souls, but be respectful in public. Do not scandalize Catholics or non-Catholics by comments about things which, if it must be said, we really have a hard time grasping (e.g., if a POPE was the right man for the job, or a disaster, or failed). These are things God must sort out. Sure, try to have informed opinions. Be careful how you express them in public.
I would desire more specific information concerning the use of the Papal Tiara and the use of the mitre.
According to Dom Gregory Dix in “The Shape of the Liturgy” the use of headress by the pope is older than use of the mitre by the pope, though only outside of the liturgy. This “secular” headress for the Pope developed into the tiara as we know it in the 14th century.
The use of the mitre during the liturgy begins interestingly: “the mitre (mitra, mitella) first appears in Christian use as the distinctive headgear of the only person who had no particular function in the liturgy — the deaconess. References to its use by deaconesses in Africa are found in the later fourth century. It passed thence to Spain where a seventh-eighth century mention of the mitra religiosa in the form for the installation of an abbess (reckoned ex officio a deaconess) is preserved in the Mozarabic Liber Ordinum.”
However he continues saying that the episcopal use of the mitre we know today began only as a papal privilage to certain individuals who were not necessarily even bishops. “The mitre is thus the one and only liturgical ornament of purely Papal origin; and the right of others to use it, whether bishops or priests or deacons or subdeacons or even laymen (some mediaeval princes, e.g. the kings of Hungary and some dukes of Bohemia, were granted this as a compliment), depended originally on a Papal privilege even more strictly than did the use of the pallium. It is in no sense a symbol in itself of episcopal orders, even though it is now worn by all Western bishops, including Swedish Lutherans and others who are not in communion with the Pope. Apart from Papal initiative it would have remained an ornament not of the bishop at all, but of the deaconess.”
So let’s have the headress with the longest papal use return for extra liturgical solemnities, and together with it, the cardinals’ galeros. Then if we ever get deaconesses they can wear their secular headress, the mitre, once again.
Then if we ever get deaconesses they can wear their secular headress, the mitre, once again.
A priest friend once told me a story about how he and some fellow seminarians played a joke on on a classmate by putting up a picture of a mitred abbess on his door. The classmate’s first thought, of course, was that it was a picture of a lady playing at being a bishop.
When we do adult baptisms by full immersion and unclothed then I’ll see the need for lay deaconesses. . . .
Alex writes:
Who the heck was Paul VI to be able to give away a tiara which was not his own, but of one of his predecessors, and which was donated by the faithful of the Rhineland to the previously reigning pontiff?
I believe the tiara which Paul VI gave away was given to him by the Archdiocese of Milan upon his election to the Papacy.
Abp. Marini is fudging when he says, “The tiara entered into liturgical use only at the start of the 17th century with Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644).” He knows as well as we do that in Mgr Burchard’s Diarium there are plenty of references to the use of the tiara in the way it was used up until the pontificate of Paul VI. Just look at his entries for Maundy Thursday and Easter of 1493. The good Archbishop also knows that, strictly speaking, the tiara does not in fact have any “liturgical use” at all, as it is used only for the coronation, for solemn entrances on the sedia (and then only on certain feasts specified in the Caeremoniale Romanum), and for blessings from the loggia on certain occasions. These rules held from at least the time of Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini (temp Innocent VIII) to that of Paul VI.
JMJ
Just surfed by via an email link..Born in 1950, Catholic schooling complete with daily Mass, Latin hynmal, Gregorian chant, nuns with metal clickers so we’d genuflect in unison etc etc.
I am grateful for every bit of this. Now that my bona fides are out of the way, I must disagree with all the ax-grinding and pseudo-nostalgia. The very best we can do is be faithful Catholics, assist at the N.O. Mass with humility, gratitude, and as much zeal and fervor as the St. Louis/Erie ditties permit, and pray for Holy Mother Church, her clergy, and the laity to live a life of evangelical witness and service.. and of course for ourselves to be transformed daily into saints by cooperating with the Holy Spirit . As, St. Francis I think, said when asked what he would do if the priest giving him the Eucharist were less than perfect, ” I would take the precious Body and Blood of my Savior with gratitude.” We have enough termites chomping away on the inside.. and enough flame-throwers and missile projectors on the outside. I don’t want to add to that. That Rowan Atkinson photo version of Pope Paul VI was disedifying and, actually, rather spooky. ( Long live BXVI!)
By the way, the title “Servus Servorum Dei” (Servant of the Servants of God) is not a title implying humility. It is to be understood in the same way that Christ is “Rex Regum” (King of Kings). Christ is the highest king among many (earthly) kings and rules over them. Similarly, the Pope is the highest servant of all the servants (bishops) and rules over them. This grammatical form can be called a “Hebrew genitive,” like saecula saeculorum, virgo virginum, and caeli caelorum.
Wallace,
Is this true? If so, why hasn’t anyone actually explained it. Everyone, including the past four popes seem to understand this as meaning servant of the people.
Fr. Z.:
I am second to none in regretting the pontificate of Paul VI, for reasons most cogently set out in Romano Amerio’s “Iota Unum”. But please, Father, remove that offensive caricatured picture. It insults in a wholly inappropriate way a successor of St. Peter and makes it more difficult to be taken seriously when setting out reasoned arguments against Pope Paul’s policies (or lack thereof).
Amazing the way a TIARA post can bring out the disobediences, animosity, and (in one case) sedevacantism of the readers of this blog.
Braying.
WAC
“some of the readers” that is.
WAC
I once saw a documentary about religious life in the Middle Ages, and the issue of mitred Abbesses was shown. Abbesses in the Middle Ages had territorial authority much like some territorial abbots of total. As with so many things in the Church after Vatican II, Paul VI did away with the idea of territorial abbots, supressing some, and creating none. Only about 12 remain today….remnants of the Middle Ages.
“What, when the great Pope washes the feet of beggars, using his tiara for ewer?”
– “Ahab” in Melville, Moby Dick
I agree with David Kubiak – I think the caricature of Pope Paul VI should be removed from your blog.
In his autobiography, “This Crown Of Thorns,” Cardinal Heenan, one time archbishop of Westminster made the point that the term “triumphalism” was first used by the bishop of Bruges at Vatican II. The Cardinal makes a point of saying that the bishop of Bruges, which was apparently known for it’s great processions, was not referring in any way to vesture or ceremonial but rather to an attitude of arrogance taken by many of the clergy, espoecially towards the clergy of other Christian denominations.
Michael quotes Marinni to the effect that the tiara was wedded to a particular age and then goes on to apply this to the cappa magna, the pontifical sandals and jewelled rings etc. But having lived through the 1960’s I well remember that the most common explanation for destroying so much of the Church’s patrimony was almost inevitably that it “is not relevant to our modern age”. It was the ecclesiatical cliche of the late 1960’s and 70’s and therein lies it’s defect for the 60’s and 70’s have passed. As the saying goes, “one who marries today is tomorrow’s widow” and it appears that Marinni’s reasoning is more and more being seen as merely an expression of the 1960’s.
The tradition of the Church was always totally different. Anthing that had ever had a place in the liturgy was never totally disgarded. The buskins and sandals date from the time of Constantine. They have been worn throughout many ages. Using Michael’s logic we should abandon the chasuble and the alb but the rule that was adopted by Bugninni and his like was the rule of arbitrariness. Certainly the maniple had as good a pedigree as the chasuble. The maniple is gone but the chasuble remains. Why? It was the stole which has been kept which is the real johnny-come-lately.
As for the tiara, as many have alreay commented, the tiara Pope Paul donated was made for his coronation by the workers of Milan. Considering that the coronation takes place only a few weeks after the election it is obvious that this tiara was a rather hasty effort. I was only a few inches way from it at the New York World’s Fair in about 1965 and that particular tiara is no loss.
It was Pope John Paul I who bypassed the coronation but in the address at his inaugural Mass not long after, Pope John Paul II defended the tiara and said that the it’s meaning had been misunderstood. He also said that it did not seem opportune to restore it’s use AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. Thus it is not abolished and the Vatican has a number of them. We may see one yet. I certainly hope so.
Fr. Z wrote: \”If you are disgruntled with Paul VI, or any other Pope, pray for their souls, but be respectful in public. Do not scandalize Catholics or non-Catholics by comments about things which, if it must be said, we really have a hard time grasping (e.g., if a POPE was the right man for the job, or a disaster, or failed). These are things God must sort out. Sure, try to have informed opinions. Be careful how you express them in public.\”
I agree, Fr., and, moreover, this is your blog, so we should respect your code of conduct, as well.
But I want to add a caveat: it there is a trait of a bishop Pontiff, etc. that may speak negatively of them we shouldn\’t necessarily hide that trait as it gives warning to others not to follow such trait. For example, there have been a few really bad pontiffs in the past, and it is not necessarily unjust scandal to point out where they failed. In fact, even devout Catholic encyclopedias do so now. Perhaps Paul VI is too contemporaneous to provide specific examples of his scandalous external behavior and possibly scandalous personal failures….
“… caricature of Pope Paul VI”
Am I missing something? I thought that is a legitimate photograph…
I am surprised that Fr. Z has not purged the post by Paul with the link to the goofy picture of Pope Paul IV. Fr. Z, this is certainly not a respectful portrait and lowers the tone of this discussion. I hope you will remove the post.
Andrew wrote: Paul VI released an Apostolic Constitution in 1975 entitled “Romano Pontifici Eligendo” stating that his successor must be crowned. It seems that John Paul I didn’t want to obey this constitution.
While I, too, look forward to the day when the tiara shall be taken up from the altar to crown our Lord’s Vicar on earth, Andrew clearly used the wrong word to describe His Holiness John Paul I’s decision not to be crowned. The Supreme Pontiff, Successor of St. Peter, Vicar of Christ, and supreme legislator does not owe obedience to his predecessor’s wishes.
Is that a given? Is the tiara a symbol of the pope’s monarchal and temporal power, or is it monarchal and temporal symbol that signifies his spiritual and ecclesiastical authority?
The Pope still today retains temporal authority, namely over the material goods of the Church. And if nothing else, he is is the king of Vatican City!
I am not Spartacus,
Your comments and the Ratzinger quotation just confirms what I said previously–the policies of Paul VI seriously damaged life in the Church.
And if you think the Church is doing well in Brazil, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
the Church would do well at this grave stage to lift the quasi \\\”excommunication\\\” against SSPX, and let them be part of the internal house-keeping (sort of like letting a dignified cat into your house to exterminate the vermine therein)….
Benedict XVI is a brilliant man, but he is also an old man; allowing the fresh and traditionally conservative blood of SSPX into the Church–that is, in full, unfettered communion with the Church–could go a long ways towards rejuvenating Her….
Benedict XVI should have lifted the \”excommunication\” against SSPX yesturday….
From a commentor above: “I don’t like the picture of Paul VI either, though must admit bursting out laughing when I clicked and it came up on the screen!”
Hmm.. after reading that, that infamous Clinton reply “I smoked it, but I didn’t inhale” comes to mind.
In all decency, enough already, this has been a free for all at the expense of the memory of Paul VI – I also agree that the link to this very distasteful picture should be removed, or the comments should be shut down for this post all together.. the level of disrespect, the conspiracy theories, the ridicule and mockery made evident by many of the comments above, in my humble opinion, is beneath this blog.
Benedict XVI should have lifted the “excommunication” against SSPX yesturday
Is it SSPX that is excommunicated, or is it just those who participated in that episcopal consecration?
But SSPX has other beefs with the Church besides the liturgy. As well intentioned as SSPX might be, they still have some problems that need to be overcome before they can be in full communion with Rome.
As for all the people bashing Pope Paul VI, he may not have been the greatest leader. Certainly he made some bad decisions. Still, have a bit more perspective instead of ranting that EVERYTHING was Pope Paul VI’s fault. If the faithful were as learned and virtuous in the “good ol’ days” as everybody says they were then none of the chaos after Vatican II would have happened. I think God is using this difficult time in the Church to help the faithful to realize they need to really know the faith and live virtuous lives. You can either sit an bitch about everything, or you can start learning, catechising, gaining virtue, and constructively helping the Church through this mess.
I don’t mind intelligent critiques of Pope Paul VI’s decisions, but all this speculative gossip and pope bashing is disrepectful and arrogant in my opinion. For whatever reason the Holy Spirit picked him and not us to lead the Church.
Back on topic, I would love to see the tiara brought back. I think a bit more emphasis on papal authority would be helpful. Still, if I have to choose my battles, I’d rather focus on just getting the Novus Ordo said according to the books so we can then get on with making a better reform of the liturgy.
Your comments and the Ratzinger quotation just confirms what I said previously—the policies of Paul VI seriously damaged life in the Church.
Mr. Brown. Has it occurred to you your words are proof of your accusations? Prior to the 1960s, it was unthinkable that a Catholic man would criticise a Pope publicly. But since then, liberalism has infected many within the Church – and you write like a liberal.
The Sunday Times of London once asked its readers to write a response to this question…
What is wrong with the world?
Chesterton wrote the best and most succinct response.
“I am”
Think about it, Sir.
Trashing dead Popes is what liberal protestants used to do.
And if you think the Church is doing well in Brazil, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Ah, a salesman. That explains it :)
EVERYONE: I have been traveling and just found the comments about the photo. I removed the comment with the photo everyone hated and then insisted on discussing. I was going to remove all the comments that led down that particular rabbit hole, but so many also blended in different topics that I couldn’t do it. So, I guess we have to leave that ugly episode on record.
Also for the record, I was a click close to banning from this blog the person who posted that photo. FYI.
I the meantime as I close this combox down:
I will share a comment I found on another blog about the comments in this entry (my emphases and comments):
We can learn something from this very strange comment: When you post nasty things on this blog about Popes whom you don’t happen to like, others can be scandalized.
Learn from this, please.