Noel's angel Posted March 17, 2013 Author Posted March 17, 2013 The 'poor church' quote threw me a little, but as you say, as time goes on I'm sure he will clarify what he meant. As for the blessing, why would anyone go to the Vatican to meet the Pope and NOT expect him to bless them and make the sign of the cross? If you are nervous about insulting people on your 'home turf', that could be a problem.
Lil Red Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 I'm not upset, I was simply asking a question. They are just shoes, so he could just wear them. If he chooses not to wear them, it's bound to raise questions as to why he choose to do so. You do seem up set ("how the hell am I supposed to know?"). I will reiterate that I wish this to be a straightforward discussion in which we can share our hopes and fears. I don't want two 'camps' to emerge. i quite assure you that i am not upset. i am not assigning motives to this thread of yours, or your posts, so kindly do not assign motives to my posts that are not there. the "why get upset over it" was a general question and not directed at any one person. and the "how in the hell am i supposed to know" was supposed to be a flippant, tongue-in-cheek response. are we clear now?
EmilyAnn Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 There are a million other really important things we could be asking about what Pope Francis will do in his papacy, and we are discussing what colour shoes he is going to wear? Really? Perspective. Get some.
Era Might Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 So Pope Benedict was no better than the Pharisees because he was fond of, and maintained tradition? I'm not saying that wearing black shoes is a hangable offence, but that certain actions Pope Francis has taken appear to be making more of his personality than is necessary. Benedict and Francis are two different men. As I said, I disagree with the dualism between person and office. Benedict had his 8 years to give a witness, now Francis has his time. Both men will have to give account for their lives. I don't think we have to try and reconcile everyone's lives. People are different, with different view, different perspectives. The same is true of leaders, even within the church. I don't view the role of St. Peter as preserving worldly traditions and accretions, but rather witnessing to Christ. I don't think the question is whether Pope Francis is expressing his personality, but whether his personality is formed in the Gospel...and if it is, then his role as a leader is to lead as he feels will best make the Gospel shine.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 There are a million other really important things we could be asking about what Pope Francis will do in his papacy, and we are discussing what colour shoes he is going to wear? Really? Perspective. Get some. Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you.
Lil Red Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 The Crescat has an interesting perspective on one of the videos that has been bandied about: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2013/03/shallow-definitions-of-beauty-the-pope-is-not-impressed.html Even in this crazy video… (Lil Red's note, I'm not linking the video) which I watched three times, as an act of penance. Pope Francis retains a reverent demeanor and respect for the holy Eucharist. I mean seriously… watch it. No, watch him. Not the balloons and the clapping and the giant puppets- tune all that out – and just watch him. What do you see? Be honest with yourself, put your cultural & liturgical preferences aside for a moment and just focus on Pope Francis and his demeanor. He’s not participating in the kook buggery around him. He’s focused on one thing and one thing only. The mass. People have been looking to this video and his preference for liturgical simplicity as proof of the pope’s heterodoxy… as if no one in all the history of the church every mutter a heresy in Latin and Catholicism remained without scandal until 1960. When I watch this video I see a man who looks like he got ambushed by the liturgy committee or whatever you call the people responsible for organizing those types of large youth masses. Do you really think he picked out the music and crafted those puppets himself? He showed up to celebrate mass and did a fantastically solemn job, given the circumstances, and exhibited patience and respect. But by all means… just see ugly. ======== and from the comments on that article: In defense of the Pope during that Liturgy....I know very well that bishops have to go to some terrible liturgies that they would rather not do. I mean, Cardinal Burke, CARDINAL BURKE, has had to celebrate at terrible liturgies, believe me, not of his own choice! But out of humility (Cardinal Burke is a good example of how a man can wear a Cappa Magna and still be humble, of using externals not to aggrandize himself, but the liturgy itself) and pastoral care Cardinal Burke still celebrated the Mass, even though it was terrible on a human level.
Lil Red Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you. Noel's angel is a girl :secret:
EmilyAnn Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you. Uh, excuse me? I was being no more "emotional" than anyone else in this thread. Of course now I'm annoyed because it seems like her opinion is allowed but mine isn't.
Lil Red Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 this comment on the Anchoress' piece really struck me: "“I think we just have to get to know this pope, who is as different as can be from our last pope as the brain is from the body.†This struck me the most in this piece. And I think you’re right. I adore Pope Emeritus Benedict. His quiet genius is right up my alley. But it seems to me, as a lowly convert of only two years, that the Church has spent a lot of time thinking about what it is since VII and Pope Emeritus spent the last eight years being our “brain,†articulating in his brilliant way the *reason* behind our faith. And maybe now we’re ready to have a Pope who can show us how to apply all that knowledge and reason and how to truly *live* that faith in the radical way that the Gospel requires of us. And Pope Francis, who I like quite a bit already, seems like just the man to do it." i dunno, i'm a bit in agreement with this quote.
KnightofChrist Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 I don't know if it is has been said, but the red shoes are symbolic of the Pontiff's following in the bloody footsteps of our Lord. There is probably a way to both respect humility and the symbolism of the tradition. Modestly priced red dress shoes could be found probably. It would help the Pope distinguish himself from the Pope emeritus, who has also chosen to wear brown shoes as an act of humility and to distinguish himself from the Pope. Difficulties could arise if both the Pope and the Pope emeritus dress exactly the same.
Lil Red Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) Hot Air has something interesting (I don't really like Hot Air, but this was nice): http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/17/video-media-meet-pope-francis-on-a-saturday-morning/ I understand enough Italian to have grasped the main thrusts of his speech. It’s clear that this pontificate will focus on the poor, and that his personal example (at least, if not his management) will be to introduce humility and poverty into the Holy See’s approach to the world. Francis himself emphasized in the speech that his choice of name was explicitly from Francis of Assisi and not the Jesuit founder Francis Xavier or Francis de Sales, although the story about how the cardinals joked with him before his decision escaped me during his speech. Francis of Assisi was, like this Francis, a man who eschewed pomp for personal connection to pastoral work. Even Pope Francis’ spontaneity speaks to that impulse. ... The media also widely reported this passage: How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor! Don’t expect Francis to divest the Church of its art and other resources, however; in an exhortation to the media, he noted that the Church protects and communications “truth, beauty, and goodness.†What he means is a poverty of approach, an end to the pomp and excess of the Church, and he means to set that example personally from the start. In yesterday’s briefing, the press office noted that he told the nuncio in Argentina that the people there should not come to the installation Mass on Tuesday, as it’s too expensive to travel to Rome, and that the money would be better off being spent on the poor. (Fr. Rosica noted at the time with a hearty laugh, “This is not a prohibition, of course!â€) ========= again, we will just have to see what Pope Francis did indeed mean when he said that. Edited March 17, 2013 by Lil Red
Gabriela Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 "Francis, go unite my Church, which you can see is falling into ruin..."
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) What is the significance of the red cape and shoes, other than tradition? I think the red shoes are simply meant to be a sign that the pope is pontifex maximus, and as I understand it the red color of the shoes for the holder of that office goes back to pre-Christian times in the city of Rome. As far as the mozzetta (short red cape) is concerned, it looks to me like a shorter version of the episcopal mantiya (mantle) worn by Eastern Christian bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. I do not know of any symbolic significance attached to the papal mozzetta, but there are lots of sacramental signs associated with the mantiya, so there may also be some symbolic signs associated with that papal garment too. The papal mozzetta is probably just a garment meant to signify the pope's office, but one would probably have to study the history of the garment to see its origins and the reasons for its use. Edited March 17, 2013 by Apotheoun
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 I have not yet seen a reliable source for the carnival quote. Neither have I, which is why the benefit of the doubt should be given.
dUSt Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 "No thank you, Monsignore," Pope Francis is reported to have replied. "You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!" Maybe he was talking about carnival that takes place before Lent begins. What was the original Italian/Spanish?
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 "Francis, go unite my Church, which you can see is falling into ruin..." Let's be calm about things. Not every disagreement among Catholics signifies the imminent collapse of the Church into disorder. :smile2:
Aloysius Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 I don't know if it is has been said, but the red shoes are symbolic of the Pontiff's following in the bloody footsteps of our Lord. There is probably a way to both respect humility and the symbolism of the tradition. Modestly priced red dress shoes could be found probably. It would help the Pope distinguish himself from the Pope emeritus, who has also chosen to wear brown shoes as an act of humility and to distinguish himself from the Pope. Difficulties could arise if both the Pope and the Pope emeritus dress exactly the same. he should wear red sandals as a compromise :cyclops: I don't have too much of a problem with the shoes, that's not really all that significant to me, shoes aren't usually liturgical in any setting; I liked that Benedict had brought them back, but they weren't totally necessary... if he was wearing nike tennis shoes I'd be worried, but black, brown, red, it doesn't make much difference to me really... but refusing to wear the mozzetta was a little much for me, especially, as it's more of a liturgical vestment... and really, what's the difference in wearing a white cassock and wearing a red mozzetta? they're both vestments that express himself symbolically as the pontiff. if the "carnival" quote is true, it's troubling IMO. Era, I think distinguishing between the individual and the office is, in fact, a good thing, in the sense of the positionality of the symbolic items that go with the priesthood or the papacy (vestments, clerics, habits, etc) and I don't think having the office overshadowing the individual in any way detracts from one's ability to make great signs of humility. the vestments any priest puts on are not ornate for the sake of the individual priest, they're like a painting or an icon they cover themselves with and hope to get lost within. trying to get rid of those symbolic trappings or trying to simplify them and get rid of ones with artistic quality is not necessarily humbling to oneself as an individual IMO. it's a fine line and there are certainly ways to dramatically express humility by which one can be seen as a humble man overshadowed by the spiritual mantle of the papacy's role on earth. the symbol of the pope should be larger than life, and completely distinct from the individual, because the symbol itself is the symbol of unity and of the Apostles. you can express dramatic humility without minimizing that symbol. he is the pope, and he will do as he wishes, but when he eschews some simple traditional symbols of the papacy I don't view that as a good thing necessarily, I just feel like we all lose out on those symbols that so many of us look to and find comfort in. these things are not for the individual man's sake, they're for the Church's sake. when we throw a mozzetta over our Pope (or I guess the MC throws it over him, but it's like we're all doing it really) or we throw a white cassock over him or an ornate miter over him, or red shoes onto his feet, in those moments we the Church are painting an iconographic image that aids us in our experience of the papacy. anyway, these are just some thoughts, like I said: the pope will do what the pope will do. and even in things I don't like I can still find a way to be edified by his expressions of simplicity, as I'm sure many people out there will be so edified. but it's a discussion to be had, it's a discussion that really cuts into the very heart of what we think about liturgical vestments, ultimately. I don't see ornate vestments as at all being a glorification of the individual priest who wears them, and that's the same attitude I have towards all the trappings of the papacy, which is why I think dropping some of those trappings is just as much of a mistake as dropping beautiful liturgical vestments... those things are not about the individual man, they're about the spiritual reality that's overshadowing the man.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 Noel's angel is a girl :secret: Learn something new every day. :hehe: That is not the first time that has happened to me. Uh, excuse me? I was being no more "emotional" than anyone else in this thread. Of course now I'm annoyed because it seems like her opinion is allowed but mine isn't. I did not say you are emotional. I simply suggested that if this thread troubles you, perhaps it is not the right place for you to be. Neither have I, which is why the benefit of the doubt should be given. Indeed.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 Rumour has it that Pope St. Pius X shook some things up as pope, doing away with some of the non-liturgical oddities of the office. What I heard specifically is that some of his advisors were rather shocked that he chose to dine with friends and colleagues, rather than dine alone in grandeur. On the other hand, the Church is very different these days than it was in that holy pope's years. I am rather of the opinion that we could use a bit more in the way of ceremony just now.
Apotheoun Posted March 17, 2013 Posted March 17, 2013 he should wear red sandals as a compromise :cyclops: I don't have too much of a problem with the shoes, that's not really all that significant to me, shoes aren't usually liturgical in any setting; I liked that Benedict had brought them back, but they weren't totally necessary... I thought sandals (in the West) were a liturgical vestment for bishops. At least they were prior to Vatican II. I am not sure about any special footwear for hierarchs in the East, but I do know that the orlets (or eagle) rug is to be used in all divine services for bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs.
Recommended Posts