Yuku free message boards

And I just want to ask you a question, what's wrong with highlighting at the monarchial past of the Papacy? It's not like it's a bad thing, is it? The Dalai Lama, at least when I went to see him, was surrounded by quite a bit of Monarchial pomp about him. Apparently it does not diminish his "spiritual" aura. At least not to aging hippies.

AspirantMonk, my misgivings about the "highlighting" of the monarchical past of the Papacy stems from the thought that I seriously doubt our Lord had a "monarchical" aspect in mind when He said to Simon bar-Jonah "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

It is wise for us to remember that not a single one of the Twelve Apostles was a member of the Jewish "upper classes" and that, when they followed Christ, they most certainly had to leave their previous "lifestyles" behind. At least four of them were fisherman, and were most definitely members of the working class. Peter himself was often described as a simple man who was most probably not the most educated of the Apostles.

My point is, the Petrine Ministry was not instituted with the concept of monarchical power in mind. It is to be remembered that our Lord said to Peter "Feed My sheep," not "Rule over My sheep." None of the Twelve had any expectations of wealth and power when they left their lives behind to follow Christ -- all of them, in fact, (with the exception of St. John the Evangelist) died martyrs' deaths, in pain and blood, having followed their Master's footsteps, even to the end of their mortal lives. There was nothing kingly or aristocratic or comfortable about the lives of the Apostles -- theirs was a life of simplicity, humility and service, to our Lord and to the Early Christian Church.

There is also this to remember. The Holy Father -- be he Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II or Benedict XVI -- is first and foremost, a priest, and as we all know, a priest is expected to take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. They are expected to leave behind the more temporal -- and therefore -- the more worldly aspects of human life, once they have been ordained into the religious life. This is one reason why they wear habits, cassocks or Roman collars, and in those instances when they don't wear religious garb, they are expected to wear simple civilian clothing. I have nothing against the beautiful scarlet and ivory mozzettas -- what I hope, however, is that they can be worn by the Pope without an "accoutrement" that clearly speaks more of temporal wealth than spiritual virtues, and has always been associated more with status and opulence than anything else, down to this day and age.

Some may argue that Christ was referred to as the "King" of the Jews. It should be remembered, though, that He Himself said "My Kingdom is not of this world", something that caused no small degree of consternation among some of his followers, who expected Him to lead a conquest, by the sword, of Israel's enemies, for they looked upon the "Messiah" as more of a temporal ruler than the Son of God. They failed to understand that the Kingdom of Christ is not an earthly fiefdom of power, prestige, wealth and comfort, but a realm of the soul built on the foundations of forgiveness, justice, hope and love.

As for the Dalai Lama, well, I must note that he -- and his predecessors -- have always been considered as the spiritual and political leaders of the Tibetan people. And that is where the difference lies. The "office" of the Bishop of Rome was never meant to be a political position - it is a spiritual office, and therefore it transcends political office. And that is why I would much rather that a greater emphasis be given to the spiritual "power" -- the "power" that truly lasts and has a far greater and far more positive impact on human life -- of the Petrine Ministry, rather than its monarchical past. How many kingdoms of this world have we seen crumble into the sands of time? How many dynasties have petered into obscurity, how many monarchies have been overthrown, often due to their own lust for power and wealth?

But the kingdom of the soul -- the Kingdom of Christ ... that is a Kingdom that will live forever.

Unicorn: Now, before AspirantMonk gets the impression that I agree with PETA and its methods, let me say that, as always, I shall say that there is a better way to go about things. In other words, while I sympathize with the message, I think that it can be expressed in a far more effective -- and dare I say, civilized? -- manner.

AspirantMonk: I didn't get that at all from your post, actually.

In which case, I am glad. Sometimes, the wrong impressions may come across to those who read what we post, primarily because we are unable to really see each other, much less appreciate such things as facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.

I have been distracted by work these days, AspirantMonk, so this is a little late ... Tanti auguri! (Happy Birthday, in Italian.) May life bring you greater learning, and lasting blessings, on your journey in search of the Will of God.

Christ may not have anointed Peter king, but he did make him the leader of what soon developed into an organized religion. And in this world those who are on top are generally accorded deference, honor and the trappings of power.

Indeed so, Rcesq, but somehow I doubt if Christ intended for Peter and his Successors to be accorded the "trappings of power". You are correct in saying that Peter was appointed to lead the Church -- an organized religion. But the fact that religion is at the heart of the organization that is the Church speaks volumes about the predominantly spiritual power that the Successors of Peter wield -- and not secular power, the kind for which the "trappings of power" are appropriate.

Yes, the apostles were martyred, but many monarchs, too, have been killed because of the position they hold. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."

The Apostles, and the Saints, were martyred for their position on the Faith. Monarchs who fell victim to regicide, however, are another matter altogether -- virtually all were murdered for purely political reasons. Louis XVI was guillotined in the course of the French Revolution, and he was seen as a symbol of the tyranny of the "Ancien Regime", not as a witness to Christ; Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by a Polish/Russian revolutionary; King Faisal II of Iraq was murdered after a coup d'etat; Nicholas II and his family were butchered because Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not want a "symbol" for the monarchists in Russia to rally around -- the list goes on and on. Now, while it may be argued that the Roman officials were not pleased with the growing "popularity" of the Christian Church -- given that the Roman Empire had its own state religion -- the fact remains that the Apostles were spiritual leaders, and did not exercise political authority in the strict sense of the term. None of them led armies that would have overthrown the Caesars, and certainly none of them had any intentions of staging a coup d'etat against Imperial Rome.

And I've noted before that the Pope does, in fact, have great power and authority in an entirely worldy way. His actions can have a direct effect on everyday lives.

Whatever "worldly" power and authority the Pope wields in this day and age, I think you know as well as I do, Rcesq, that such power is wielded in a manner that is far, far different from the way it was exercised by, say, the Renaissance Popes, and for vastly different reasons. Gone are the days when a Pope could influence who would sit on a European throne, which crown prince would marry which princess, or which duke would form an alliance with which count or marquess. In those years, the Popes exercised their "temporal" powers in an attempt to influence the balance of power in Europe, a purely political motive, and I seriously doubt that spiritual matters were uppermost in their minds.

In contrast, John Paul II made known his support -- and Benodette is quite correct in describing it as "moral" support -- for Solidarity because it was a movement against Communism, and the unspeakable brutality of that ideology and the men who championed it. But to say that he -- or any of the modern-day Pontiffs -- would wield whatever influence they have for purely political reasons is really not advisable. In other words, when the Pope speaks on any issues, or makes an effort to "exert" whatever influence he has on the global stage, such actions are premised on spiritual and moral issues, and certainly in light of his concern for the welfare not just of Christians and Catholics, but of all peoples. When Benedict XVI pleaded passionately for an end to the hostilities in the 2006 Lebanon War, it was certainly not because he favored either Israel or Hamas -- it was because he was appalled at the loss of life, for people of all faiths and no faith, and wanted to avert further tragedy on a scale that could engulf the entire Middle East in an inferno of violence and bloodshed. But for a Pope to openly attempt to dictate, say, the outcome of a country's elections, in the same manner that the Renaissance Popes attempted to control the lines of succession in several European kingdoms -- that is simply not done in this day and age. As Benodette noted, if the Pope ever "interfered" openly with the politics of any country -- even those with democratic governments -- there would be an uproar heard around the world.

Insofar as the priesthood is concerned, diocesan priests do not, actually, take vows of poverty. Only religious priests do, for those Orders that require the additional vow of poverty. That is why Father Joseph Ratzinger was able to teach at universities in Germany and make quite a good living.

While that may be true, the simplicity of life expected of a priest is also the reason why, despite the income he earned from teaching in German universities and publishing dozens of books on theology, Joseph Ratzinger was also known to live a very simple life, content to spend his vacations in seminaries and monasteries (e.g. his vacations in Bressanone), eating simple food in quiet restaurants and cafes, dressing in simple clothes, living in an ordinary house, and on one particularly memorable occasion in New York, waiting serenely in line at the Immigration Counter at JFK International, never breathing a word that he was a Cardinal and the second most powerful man in the Vatican.

The Supreme Pontiff is not, today, a simple fisherman or tax collector and I don't think that there's much to be gained by dressing down out of a sense of what would be false modesty.

Neither is he a king or an emperor. Whatever else the history of the Church may say about the Papacy, the fact remains that the first Pope was a simple, down-to-earth fisherman who was called to be a shepherd and a pastor, not a king and a emperor. No one is expecting the Pope to dress in sack cloth and ashes, nor do those of us who prefer to emphasize the spiritual nature of the Petrine Ministry expect to see him in a sombre business suit -- sarcasm, Rcesq, doesn't always help. No one is denying the fact that for a number of centuries, the Popes "ruled" as "temporal monarch"; what is being said here, and which has already been said before, is that at its deepest meaning, the Petrine Ministry is a ministry of the spirit. Today, the Pope is universally recognized as the "moral conscience" of the world, not as the power behind the Holy Roman Empire. It is, therefore, as Benodette has so aptly said, not very wise to arrest the image of the Papacy and the Pope, at this long-gone and relatively unlamented period.

Honestly, I think that the pomp and display should be reserved for the liturgy, where it serves the purpose of glorifying God.

Well, I suppose you and I have different opinion, AspirantMonk. Because when I am participating in a liturgical celebration, I feel that God is truly glorified in the fervent prayers of the congregation, in the words of wisdom and spiritual guidance of the priest's homily, in the beautiful and respectful reading of the Gospels, in the silent adoration of the Host and the Chalice, in the singing of the magnificent hymns praising the love and mercy of God. In other words, in words, thoughts and actions that truly come from the heart.

I'm afraid pomp and display just don't cut it, for me.

How the Pope sees himself is not really the issue. It's how he is seen by others.

I really do beg to disagree, Rcesq.

From where I sit, it matters very much to me how the Pope sees himself and the Papacy. That was the very thing that caused so many problems for the Papacy during the years when it was viewed as a "monarchy" by such Popes as Alexander VI and Leo X - the former thought it was fine for him to have illegitimate children, and to marry them off to the royal heirs of Europe, as other European monarchs did; the latter thought it no big deal to exhaust the Papal treasury so that he could throw parties, balls and masques at the Apostolic Palace as his other "brother monarchs" did at their own palaces. Evidently, the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience - which are the foundation of the priesthood - meant nothing to these men. Is it any wonder that bishops and cardinals followed suit, taking mistresses, building themselves huge palaces, and clothing themselves in elaborate brocades and silks, thereby giving the "common people" the impression that many ranking clergymen of those centuries cared not a whit for their ecclesiastical vows?

How a person sees himself informs and influences his actions - and it is his actions that will inform people's impressions of him. Therefore, how the Pope sees himself is definitely very much the issue. And personally, I thank God I was born in the 20th Century, when the Popes have most assuredly ceased viewing themselves as temporal rulers, and take their ecclesiastical vows with the utmost and absolute seriousness.

And when it comes to solidarity, I prefer to support people, unlike some of the fanatics who do things like firebombing scientists' homes and cars just because they work with laboratory animals …

Really now, Rcesq, I think you know quite well that Benodette's and my loathing for the treatment of animals by certain individuals and organizations does not automatically mean that we support the very questionable (and that's putting it very mildly) methods employed by some animal rights activists. Regardless of what Signor Machiavelli had to say about "the end justifying the means", that is a thought that neither of us subscribes to - it is a thought that is very much on the slippery slope towards abuse and corruption. Moreover, I have always believed that the use of such unscrupulous methods in supposed advocacy of a "worthy cause" serves only to cheapen the so-called "crusade".

No one here is saying that animals should be given "better treatment than human beings". The point is that they should also be treated in a manner that is sufficiently humane, as befits their - and our - common nature as creatures of God. Man, as we all know, was given stewardship over the earth, and this is the stewardship that Il Papa spoke of in his meeting with the clergy at Bressanone, as can be noted from the quotation posted by Benodette. This stewardship, while allowing man to obtain sustenance from the earth - and the animals that inhabit it - most assuredly does not extend to his treatment of other living creatures as mere products to be consumed without rhyme or reason, or as expendable sources of items that would have no other purpose that to feed human vanity. And who better to remind us all - and to stand as an example - of the responsibilities of such stewardship than the Vicar of Christ himself?

Insofar as the Pope's modest apartment and living above the shop and all that is concerned - that's not what the man on the street sees. They see the outside of these monstrously huge buildings with public apartments that are decorated in the most over-the-top Italian Renaissance styles, guarded by fellows in outlandish military costumes, surrounded by insurmountably high walls and a man who, when he leaves those walls, does so under heavy security in the most expensive limousines or specially designed cars available. That's not the image that corresponds to a simple pastor or modest moral leader or ordinary servant of the faithful, is it? Face it, the