Triple Crown Tiara

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]The Pope is a King and he is anything but a figurehead in his domain, he is by Feudal right one of the greatest land owners in the world, and he has absolute power over those domains.[/quote]

LOL. Ok, you can keep your illusions of grandeur.

[quote]If you understood the Church and it's workings you would never say he is a figurehead.[/quote]

Like it or not, the Pope IS a relative figurehead in the modern world. His political power is by persuasion, not jurisdictional authority. Now, the Popes can either try to assert jurisdictional authority over a world that will sooner blow themselves up than accept it. Or he can do what the modern Popes have already done, and accept their role in the modern world, and focus on the true Kingdom, that of the Eternal Word.

btw, you're entitled to your opinion about the Tiara. If you want the Pope to wear the Tiara, whatever. It's a matter of discipline. Just as long as you accept the legitimacy of the Pope's decision not to wear it.

Edited April 25, 2005 by Eremite

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 25 2005, 05:32 PM']
LOL. Ok, you can keep your illusions of grandeur.



Like it or not, the Pope IS a relative figurehead in the modern world. His political power is by persuasion, not jurisdictional authority. Now, the Popes can either try to assert jurisdictional authority over a world that will sooner blow themselves up than accept it. Or he can do what the modern Popes have already done, and accept their role in the modern world, and focus on the true Kingdom, that of the Eternal Word.

btw, you're entitled to your opinion about the Tiara. If you want the Pope to wear the Tiara, whatever. It's a matter of discipline. Just as long as you accept the legitimacy of the Pope's decision not to wear it. [/quote]
You really have little philosophical understanding of government don't you.
First to your sad attempt at condescention you obviously realy do not understand anything about the internal workings of the Church, all parishes, chancelleries, palaces, houses Etcare owned either by an Order or by the bishop of the diocese, it is all his personal property, your church doesn't belong to the people of your parish it belongs to your bishop and legally he is free to do with it what he wills, From a legal point of view the bishop can sell your church and use the money to go to Vegas and Gamble if he wants to. The Pope however has the authority to remove bishops at his pleasure, to move them, to do what ever with them, this is essintially still a Feudal relationship between the bishop and his king, The Pope atthis time at least still has total power over all of these holdings, that is not a little thing, the Pope could devestate the economy of several States within the United states with a simple command " close all the schools". The figure I read just last week was 47 billion dollars, thats how much would have to be allocated immediatly if the Catholic schools closed there doors, however that wouldn't be evenly distributed just a few States would take the brunt of that hit and there budgets would not do well for it. These are not illusions of anything this is simply an educated understanding of the Church and it's workings.


Now as for the Popes political Power being by persuasion this is where you prove your basic lack of understanding of western philosophy of Government... the Pope has virtually no Power political or otherwise, but here is the kicker, the Pope has never had any Power, Innocent III is often clled the mostpowerful man of his age, butthat is false. Innocent too was powerless, no Innocent III enjoyed great and recognized Authority but No Power. You see Authority is the right to command, Innocent III had that Authority just as does Benedict XVI but those with Power recognized that Authority and acted on it in his stead. Power is the ability to use Force... or put in a very simple term "Power is a man with a gun" whether or not he has the Authority to use it he has the Power to use it. However this authority has always been like that an old man exerts on his adult sons " moral Authority", by the time the Popes gained any level of Power ( during the Reniessance ) they had already lost much of the recognition of their Authority and so Power was necessary to maintian themselves. Now the Pope like those of the Middle Ages has no Power but his Authority, granted to him by God is undiminished, there are Temporal implications to the Gospel, and it is his Holinesses duty as the Vicar of Christ to do his best to bring those to things to pass. If the Pope doesn't declare his Authority( which is what a crown does) then he forfiets from the begining any hope of excerising any Authority in the modern world be it Moral or otherwise.

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Apr 25 2005, 06:43 PM'] You really have little philosophical understanding of government don't you.
First to your sad attempt at condescention you obviously realy do not understand anything about the internal workings of the Church, all parishes, chancelleries, palaces, houses Etcare owned either by an Order or by the bishop of the diocese, it is all his personal property, your church doesn't belong to the people of your parish it belongs to your bishop and legally he is free to do with it what he wills, From a legal point of view the bishop can sell your church and use the money to go to Vegas and Gamble if he wants to. The Pope however has the authority to remove bishops at his pleasure, to move them, to do what ever with them, this is essintially still a Feudal relationship between the bishop and his king, The Pope atthis time at least still has total power over all of these holdings, that is not a little thing, the Pope could devestate the economy of several States within the United states with a simple command " close all the schools". The figure I read just last week was 47 billion dollars, thats how much would have to be allocated immediatly if the Catholic schools closed there doors, however that wouldn't be evenly distributed just a few States would take the brunt of that hit and there budgets would not do well for it. These are not illusions of anything this is simply an educated understanding of the Church and it's workings.


Now as for the Popes political Power being by persuasion this is where you prove your basic lack of understanding of western philosophy of Government... the Pope has virtually no Power political or otherwise, but here is the kicker, the Pope has never had any Power, Innocent III is often clled the mostpowerful man of his age, butthat is false. Innocent too was powerless, no Innocent III enjoyed great and recognized Authority but No Power. You see Authority is the right to command, Innocent III had that Authority just as does Benedict XVI but those with Power recognized that Authority and acted on it in his stead. Power is the ability to use Force... or put in a very simple term "Power is a man with a gun" whether or not he has the Authority to use it he has the Power to use it. However this authority has always been like that an old man exerts on his adult sons " moral Authority", by the time the Popes gained any level of Power ( during the Reniessance ) they had already lost much of the recognition of their Authority and so Power was necessary to maintian themselves. Now the Pope like those of the Middle Ages has no Power but his Authority, granted to him by God is undiminished, there are Temporal implications to the Gospel, and it is his Holinesses duty as the Vicar of Christ to do his best to bring those to things to pass. If the Pope doesn't declare his Authority( which is what a crown does) then he forfiets from the begining any hope of excerising any Authority in the modern world be it Moral or otherwise. [/quote]
JMJ
4/25 - St. Mark the Evangelist

I'm not taking sides here, but if you're going to claim to argue philosophically, give me a philosophical argument. I don't see an argument here, just a series of assertions, one after the other.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Apr 25 2005, 01:29 PM'] JMJ
4/25 - St. Mark the Evangelist

For whatever reason, the tiara was dropped after the Council. It's not in the rite anymore. It'd be nice if a lot of things came back (i.e. the old Roman Rite from its pre-Gallic days), but what we have in front of us is what is normative and what the Church deems best for us in this time. Let's stop complaining about our Mother. [/quote]
Not to be a total drag Pio, but it is still a possiblity. Just because the John Paul's didn't use the tiara doesn't mean that it has been abrogated.

The possbility still exists. Although I don't think that Benedict XVI chose to do this.

And I agree that we need to stop complaining about our Blessed Mother.

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]You really have little philosophical understanding of government don't you.[/quote]

I don't know. I guess my words will have to speak for themselves, whether in the affirmative, or in the negative.

[quote]First to your sad attempt at condescention[/quote]

I made no "attempt" at condescension. Whether I in fact achieved that end nontheless, I will again have to let the words speak for themselves.

[quote]The Pope atthis time at least still has total power over all of these holdings, that is not a little thing, the Pope could devestate the economy of several States within the United states with a simple command " close all the schools".[/quote]

LOL. I'd love to see the Pope try to 'devastate' the United States of America. If Osama Bin Laden can't do it, Josef Ratzinger can't either (not that he would want to).

[quote]the Pope has virtually no Power political or otherwise[/quote]

To the contrary. He is the sovereign of his own city-state. Furthermore, he has much political influence, as is evidenced by his frequent addresses to the united nations, and in particular events such as the downfall of communism, which the Pope played a direct role in.

[quote]Power is the ability to use Force[/quote]

Ever hear of the Swiss guards? They serve at the pleasure of the Pope.

[quote]Now the Pope like those of the Middle Ages has no Power but his Authority, granted to him by God is undiminished, there are Temporal implications to the Gospel, and it is his Holinesses duty as the Vicar of Christ to do his best to bring those to things to pass.[/quote]

And he has (and is) doing just that.

[quote]If the Pope doesn't declare his Authority( which is what a crown does) then he forfiets from the begining any hope of excerising any Authority in the modern world be it Moral or otherwise. [/quote]

A crown is a material thing. By itself, it does nothing. The modern Roman Pontiffs have had absolutely no problem exercising their temporal duties in the modern world, from the appointment of Bishops to any other necessary duty. Walking around in crowns would not get them any more power or rights than they already possess.

The American government doesn't care what the Pope has on his head. He will get the same treatment, regardless. Fortunately (due in large part to his modern status as a sovereign head of state) he does not have any hindrances in carrying out his duties.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]LOL. I'd love to see the Pope try to 'devastate' the United States of America. If Osama Bin Laden can't do it, Josef Ratzinger can't either (not that he would want to).[/quote]

Actually, i think he could. but why would he? Lol. But he could. He has more power than us ignorant Americans think. We believe we are just the biggest and greatest thing in the world.. (I speak for those who do think that.. not necesarily all, or even a majority of americans, especially after Sept 11)

[Guest Eremite]

Fidei,

Americans know how to survive. Whether the war for independence, the depression, or terrorism.

The Pope, God bless his soul, would be signing his own death certificate if he tried to take on the United States.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 25 2005, 07:39 PM'] The Pope, God bless his soul, would be signing his own death certificate if he tried to take on the United States. [/quote]
Amen.

But then again, has america ever been attacked by a pope? Yes, its far fetched.. but still, if all conditions were right, and Americans were more orthodox, he could take on the moral system of the US atleast. Yes, the economy aspect is too far fetched.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Apr 25 2005, 06:43 PM'] You really have little philosophical understanding of government don't you.
First to your sad attempt at condescention you obviously realy do not understand anything about the internal workings of the Church, all parishes, chancelleries, palaces, houses Etcare owned either by an Order or by the bishop of the diocese, it is all his personal property, your church doesn't belong to the people of your parish it belongs to your bishop and legally he is free to do with it what he wills, From a legal point of view the bishop can sell your church and use the money to go to Vegas and Gamble if he wants to. The Pope however has the authority to remove bishops at his pleasure, to move them, to do what ever with them, this is essintially still a Feudal relationship between the bishop and his king, The Pope atthis time at least still has total power over all of these holdings, that is not a little thing, the Pope could devestate the economy of several States within the United states with a simple command " close all the schools". The figure I read just last week was 47 billion dollars, thats how much would have to be allocated immediatly if the Catholic schools closed there doors, however that wouldn't be evenly distributed just a few States would take the brunt of that hit and there budgets would not do well for it. These are not illusions of anything this is simply an educated understanding of the Church and it's workings.


Now as for the Popes political Power being by persuasion this is where you prove your basic lack of understanding of western philosophy of Government... the Pope has virtually no Power political or otherwise, but here is the kicker, the Pope has never had any Power, Innocent III is often clled the mostpowerful man of his age, butthat is false. Innocent too was powerless, no Innocent III enjoyed great and recognized Authority but No Power. You see Authority is the right to command, Innocent III had that Authority just as does Benedict XVI but those with Power recognized that Authority and acted on it in his stead. Power is the ability to use Force... or put in a very simple term "Power is a man with a gun" whether or not he has the Authority to use it he has the Power to use it. However this authority has always been like that an old man exerts on his adult sons " moral Authority", by the time the Popes gained any level of Power ( during the Reniessance ) they had already lost much of the recognition of their Authority and so Power was necessary to maintian themselves. Now the Pope like those of the Middle Ages has no Power but his Authority, granted to him by God is undiminished, there are Temporal implications to the Gospel, and it is his Holinesses duty as the Vicar of Christ to do his best to bring those to things to pass. If the Pope doesn't declare his Authority( which is what a crown does) then he forfiets from the begining any hope of excerising any Authority in the modern world be it Moral or otherwise. [/quote]
Amen.

[Cam42]

[quote]He is the sovereign of his own city-state.[/quote]

Wouldn't that be a reason to have a crown? I mean the Queen of England wears a crown. And isn't she the sovereign of a state?

[quote]A crown is a material thing. By itself, it does nothing.[/quote]

True, but when put on the head of the Pope, it symbolizes the threefold Authority of the Pontiff in a non-liturgical way.

Why wouldn't he wear it? The title "Servus Servorum Dei," is only one of the many titles that the Successor of Peter has. I believe that Summus Pontifex is one as well.

[Guest Eremite]

Oh definitely, if Americans themselves revolted against the government, that would be completely different.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Wouldn't that be a reason to have a crown? I mean the Queen of England wears a crown. And isn't she the sovereign of a state?[/quote]

Sure, but the Queen of England isn't the successor of St. Peter (the Pope's primary and most important role). Simplicity of demeanor reflects simplicity of heart.


[quote]when put on the head of the Pope, it symbolizes the threefold Authority of the Pontiff in a non-liturgical way.[/quote]

I have no problem with the Tiara in theory. The Popes who did wear it weren't prideful (most of them, anyway). The context of modern society, however, and the drastically different status of the Papacy disinclines me toward the restoration of this practice. This same threefold authority can be expressed in some other simple way (eg, I know the Franciscans represent the three vows they take with three cords around their waste).

[quote]Why wouldn't he wear it? The title "Servus Servorum Dei," is only one of the many titles that the Successor of Peter has. I believe that Summus Pontifex is one as well.[/quote]

Because, as I said above, servant is the most fundamental and most important role of the Bishop of Rome. Unlike regular temporal rulers, he is the chief fisher of souls in the Church. Jesus, King of Kings, did not feel the need to have lavish displays of his Kingship (though he did have some, such as the anointing with the expensive oil).

In a non-Liturgical setting, I think the Church should bear a posture of simplicity, as it serves as a better witness to the world, that the Kingdom is not about riches and glory, but about humble serve in Christ.

This is not a rant against everything nice in the Church. Liturgical celebrations should bear the note of solemnity, as should Churches, which have a specific eschatological significance.

[Cam42]

[quote]In a non-Liturgical setting, I think the Church should bear a posture of simplicity, as it serves as a better witness to the world, that the Kingdom is not about riches and glory, but about humble serve in Christ.[/quote]

And that is your opinion, however, there are many who disagree. What so much more noble about playing the pauper? I think that to promote the riches that the Church has can be a strong witness to the world. Sure there is a charism to the simplicity, but there is also a charism to the riches of the Church.

Is playing the pauper always a good thing? Nope. My opinion, however, I think that the Church will agree that the patrimony and noblity she is due is worthy of her 2000 year history, as well.

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]And that is your opinion, however, there are many who disagree.[/quote]

It's like Chesterton said. Catholics agree about everything. They just disagree about everything else.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[img]http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/4b/PiusXtiara.jpg[/img]

look its one of my Favorite Saints Pope Saint Pius X! Look at him rocking that Papal Tiara! for shizzile!