Pope Francis (can We Have A Sensible Discussion?)

[Lil Red]

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!”)

=========

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]

"Francis, go unite my Church, which you can see is falling into ruin..."

[Apotheoun]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[EmilyAnn]

 I feel the need to point out he has only been pope for about three days. We don't really know enough to speculate about a lot of things. 

 

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.

I've seen far more troubling threads on Phatmass.
 

Edited March 17, 2013 by EmilyAnn

[Era Might]

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.

 

I agree, I'm not against symbols or ritual, but I think it's a question of the context. The Liturgy IMO is something different from the Apostolic ministry. I think you would agree that much of Papal tradition has its roots in the worldly place of the papacy. Putting that aside, I don't think one has to renounce an appreciation for symbol in order to sort of recontextualize something like the papacy. But I disagree about the pope having to be "larger than life." St. Peter never interacted that way with the other Apostles. I think there is certainly a time and a place to express the spiritual respect and veneration for what St. Peter represents, but I don't think that has to be done in the manner in which the papacy does it. For me, I would like to see less "theatre" not more. I am more interested in the Pope as a man and a witness to Jesus Christ, rather than a cultural and institutional relic.

 

Just to use a personal example, I do not really like wedding rings. Not because I am against the symbol of a ring, but I have an intense dislike of having a commercial symbol on my finger...the ring, for me, is an economic object, and it becomes a sort of noose reminding me every day of my slavery to our industrial economy. If I had the ability and material to make my own ring, then THAT would be very meaningful to me, because it is not the symbol or the gold in itself that bothers me. It's all a matter of context.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've seen far more troubling threads on Phatmass. 

Undoubtedly. I do not think you met JimR_OCDS though.
My suggestion has nothing to do with other threads. If this one troubles you, such that you think the discussion itself is ridiculous, then I simply suggested that you need not trouble yourself with it. I think it has been a reasonable discussion thus far.

[qfnol31]

I apologize if this gets all garbled. I'm trying to respond from my phone.

My Cardinal Archbishop was interviewed before he entered the conclave about the "coffee discussions" that preceded the cardinals all arriving in Rome and he was asked if in these conversations a frontrunner was starting to come into view. He responded that there was not a frontrunner as much as a profile of a Pope that was becoming clear. One of the key characteristics of this Pope would be his ability to address this world in spite of the media and around the media, using the means available to him, getting the Gospel out in a new way without letting the media distort it as it has before.

Watch Pope Francis and see if he doesn't in fact fit this profile. His radical simplicity and preference for the poor in a credible way, following faithfully the model laid out by Benedict, takes away the media's voice of criticism against this man. Watch how quickly it has happened. How can they criticize him the way they used Benedict? The radical simplicity is my guess exactly why he's in office right now and exactly what the cardinals expected from him in the first place.

[Apotheoun]

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.

I admit that I am torn on the issue of papal traditions.

 

I am a traditionalist, and so I do not like to see traditions broken in either the East or the West, but I can - as a person who wants to see the restoration of communion between the Catholic Churches (Roman and Eastern) and the Eastern Orthodox Churches - see the weakening of the signs of power around the pope as a good thing, because the Orthodox think the pope has too much power at the present time. So I am torn. I suppose I will have to wait and see what Pope Francis decides to do during his pontificate.