Rorate Caeli

Tiara out, miter in -- once more.

Rinascimento Sacro reports that for today's Angelus, the papal coat of arms with tiara from Ars Regia that had occasioned so much discussion since its first appearance on October 10, was replaced with the coat of arms with miter:

Noting that some of the vestments made for Pope Benedict XVI have the tiara and not the miter with his coat of arms, Rinascimento Sacro's report -- which has photos of some of these magnificent vestments -- states that these will likely be redone as well in order to remove the tiara.


Anonymous said...

Up and down again!
Where are we going with the Church led by Benedict XVI???

Anonymous said...

The more things change...

Praenestinus said...


Anonymous said...

brick by brick...

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"Up and down again!
Where are we going with the Church led by Benedict XVI???"

Nowhere. That's where. We're stuck in the "New Springtime" of John Paul II, and Benedict XVI is content just walking in his shadow.

Anonymous said...

More of the same... but what else is to be expected. Spirit of Vatican II you know!

Anonymous said...

The Vatican fiddling while Rome burns

Anonymous said...

Sorry, this is not the pope vacillating. The reason for the appearance of the tiara, which by explicit request of Pope Benedict was not used on his arms, was put there by the donors of the gift banner.

If donors showed the decency to respect the Holy Father's wishes concerning his arms, there would be consistency. It seems that some people think they know better than the Holy Father what he should have on his arms.

Lautensack said...

I would not get worried now and just wait what happens in about half a year. The still 'official' design is just both graphically and heraldically so bad that it will disappear over time (just to give three reasons: a white mitre is only worn by popes on Good Friday and at the Requiem, stripes as indicators of rank belong to the navy, not the church, and bishops do not display mitres in their arms, anyway).

I very much doubt that the Tiara was removed by explicit Request of the Holy Father. The design of the arms was ready very shortly after his election, and one has to assume that it had been prepared by curial officials - like the Pseudo-Greek Pallium that has already disappeared.

shane said...

even Pope John Paul II used the tiara on his coat of arms....

Thommo said...

Does it really matter?

Anonymous said...

This is worse than anything. Why did they use the tiara in the first place if they were not strong enough to resist the inevitable outcry that would ensue?

Backing down after a failed attempt is always the worst possible scenario.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 23:42, you said "If donors showed the decency to respect the Holy Father's wishes concerning his arms, there would be consistency. It seems that some people think they know better than the Holy Father what he should have on his arms".

Sorry but this "thing" right behind the apse of Saint Peter's Basilica...
Can't we assume this to be an expression of "the Holy Father's wishes concerning his arms"? And let me add that it was already there as early as 2007.

Anonymous said...

"Does it really matter?"

I do not approve of the comments above that are disrespectful of the Holy Father. In fact this may have been done by those who tend to control what the Pope does. Bishop Fellay has said that the Pope has very little power over what goes on in the Vatican.

Does it matter? Absolutely! Symbols are what humans have used from time immemorial to communicate. Symbols can communicate a thousand words. The symbol of the tiara represents the Church's dominion over the world and therefore Christ's dominion over the world. The reason the modern world rejects the tiara is because it is monarchist. The world does not want to be controlled by the Church and the Church being anti-monarchist does not want to control the world. What this ends up doing is eliminating the Church's identity as the one true Faith. If the one true Faith does not rule over the nations then order will never come to human society, for the laws of the true Faith are the laws of God Who alone can bring order to the human race.

Anonymous said...

"The design of the arms was ready very shortly after his election..."

In actual fact, it took quite a while for the arms to be revealed, and it certainly wasn't ready for the inauguration Mass. By contrast, Archbishop Heim, then the de facto authority on ecclesiastical arms, prepared the official arms of Popes Montini, Wojtyla and Lucani within the first few days of each respective pontificate.

Anonymous said...

I don't know where else to post this but I would like to report a Latin Mass is now offered at St Mary's in Bundaberg, Queensland Australia by a retired priest every 3rd Sunday of the month.

Calvin said...

when we consider what is represented by the papal tiara, it matters.

Anonymous said...

Do you know who is the owner of Ars Regia?

Anonymous said...

No pope has worn a tiara SINCE PAUL VI GAVE IT AWAY TO THE un AND THEY SOLD IT. So why should one be on a banner that the last 3 popes never worn one..It would be wonderful if traditional group gave our holy father one just to see if he would wear it.

Anonymous said...

"Bishop Fellay has said that the Pope has very little power over what goes on in the Vatican."

Does anybody believe that Pope Benedict XVI possesses very little power at the Vatican?

Bishop Fellay's declaration is nonsense.


Man of Kent said...

In fact the tiara is on a lot of things, check out some of the papal thrones on which the tiara remains and a new coat of arms is screwed on each time.

There seem to be few people who actually study the papal liturgies carefully enough to make a proper comment.

Lautensack has made an intelligent comment. Thank you.

As everything the Holy Father has done - slowly, slowly. Now it comes out, now it goes back. Its on and off with all sorts of vestments, thrones etc. If Benedict XVI was so ideologically opposed to the Tiara he would permit it on… nothing...

The same thing happened with the Roman vestments, on, off, on, off and now they come out and nobody bats an eyelid. The Holy Father has won, and not a shot has been fired. Same with the pontifical dalmatics, etc, etc.

Notice a few other things, notice the covering on the papal thrones that comes out on hot days, at first it was white sunshade. Now its turned red... next it will be, the old baldachino and nobody will bat an eyelid.

Its called diplomacy and discretion...? Actually its brilliant. Benedict XVI is a fascinating man and he is doing exactly what the revolution did in opposite.

Study what he says… properly.
Study what he does.. properly.
Viva il Papa! Viva! Viva!

More seriously... Come on Rorate Coeli, be men... take a stand here. I for one am getting sick of reading this kind of stuff in your comments box. Its no better than Angel Queen. Okay, fine, you want to have discussion, but where is the discussion going? If after 5 years of Benedictine reform, in which every little step has worked something like this tiara coming out and going back, you, the editors of the blog permit people to make comments like the first ones on this post, which are neither constructive nor informed, nor even eloquent... then I am afraid I feel that you are perhaps leading people to the attitude of recognise and reject, and your blog may be doing more harm than good. Come on, show a bit of guts. You would not want to be breeding the attitude of distrust here, which is exactly what the SSPX do... until... they and all their admirers are incapable of trusting anybody in the Church, much as they may want to.
I understand that these comments are not your opinion, point taken (above) but the sheer volume of anti-papal slanders that go up have an effect.
"Booooooooooooooooo" is dangerously close to "wagging ones head". He who eats of the Pope dies of the Pope, and such has its very own, very awful, punishment. Be careful.
Is that what you are wanting to do with this blog?
I want to serve the Holy Father with my life, I want to trust him and get behind him and support his efforts at a needed reform.
Why do you hardly ever tell us about something the Fr John Berg has said... for example. The only priest named on the contributors list of this blog is FSSP and all we hear about is Fellay, Fellay.
Come on Rorate, support your own men.

Man of Kent said...

I quote:
"perhaps they should replace the ugly "mitre" with Mickey Mouse ears, just to make the Papacy look like totally ridiculous"
"Hey you guys" as you say over there - this is exactly what I am talking about. Rorate - how is the above helping the Church or even contributing to the ecclesiastical conversation?
P.K.T.P. I presume your comment is a joke - or else you are raving? And even if it is is a joke it is in extremely bad taste because a new reader would have no idea what you meant.
The quality of these comments is atrocious and more than that they are dangerous. If you read this nonsense all day, soon it begins to rub off.

LeonG said...

A tiara will not alter the essential nature of this papacy. Neither does the SP for that matter.

Thre mitre is certainly preferable to clown hats or jester's bonnets.

Anonymous said...

Heraldically, what the mitre says to the world is this: I am nothing but a bishop. This is what Cranmer said of the Pope in the sixteenth century: he's nothing but the Bishop of Rome. It's also what the liberals have been saying since the 1960s: he's only the bishop of Rome, or, as Fr. Dion of my Diocese said to me: every bishop is the pope of his own diocese.

The replacement of the tiara with a mitre, the crest of a mere bishop and a Protestant one at that, is meant to suggest a diminution of papal authority. Heraldry is pure symbolism and no pope would be unaware of such blatant departure from tradition. The tradition (no, we are not archæologists here) is for the Pope to use the tiara in place of the secular crest, just as cardinals and bishops use the clerical hat.

Do some of us on this list know better what should be in the papal arms than the Pope does? Of course we do. The Pope has done much good but the besuited Fr. Ratzinger has never been repudiated.

They have uncrowned him, just as they have uncrowned Christ the King.


Anonymous said...


No, I don't agree. Even a dunce-cap would at least not suggest that the Vicar of Christ is only an Anglican bishop. A duncecap would be seen as farcical. But to suggest that the Supreme Pontiff is a mere bishops is worse than farcical: it militates directly against his authority where symbol counts the most.


Anonymous said...

Man of Kent seems to think that critics of the papal policy here are enemies of the Pope. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We love the Pope and we hate what the liberals have done to the papacy: they more than imply that it is only a rubber stamp in a collegial Church. They go too far. They presume too much.

The changes in papal vestments are not remotely as important as papal heraldry. Heraldry is pure symbol of the very highest diplomatic order: it tells the world who the honouree is. Would the Queen remove the royal lions passant from her shield? Not unless she favoured a republic. Would a duke replace his coronet with the strawberry leaves for that of a mere baron? Not unless he yearned to abandon his dukedom. What squire would rotate his helm dexter, thereby demoting himself to a gentleman? What metropolitan would remove his archiepiscopal cross and dress as one of his own suffragans?

There is a tradition in Catholic heraldry. There are stemmata for popes and cardinals, bishops and abbots, patriarchs and priors, and different hats for different grades of monsignori. Even the remnant of the old archdeacons still have their proper forms. Perhaps Man of Kent would be 'cool' with a papal achievement crested by the clerical hat of a deacon? Why not? If he's more than an Anglican bishop, he's also more than a deacon. More in honour, more in rulership, more in service, greater in pastoral solicitude.

Now our bishops do not crest their shields with the mitre and have not done so in several centuries. The only bishops who do that are Anglican bishops. Is the Pope an Anglican bishop?

The symbolism of this vile act of vandalism is clear. The Pope (or is it others?) wishes to signal that he renounces his regnal authority. Curialists now complain that the Church is ungovernable. Well, this Pope won't even admit his authority in the very symbol proper to his person. The Pope has little power? Well, if he cannot even control his own shield, he must have little power indeed. Can he order a cup of tea in the Vatican or will they force him to drink coffee?

Is he the Pope? Well, his treble authority is renounced. Is he the Patriarch of the West? Well, he won't use the title. Even Paul VI wore the tiara, put it on his arms and used the patriarchal title. Even John XXIII was crowned.

They have uncrowned Christ the King and now the Pope uncrowns himself. We need to pray for a restoration that is radical--radix--to the root.


L.M.N.O.P. said...

It is curious why Rorate Caeli keeps Rev. Fr. L. Demets, FSSP, on the list of contributors when he never contributes and news about the FSSP is sparse.

In fact, the last time the FSSP came up on Rorate Caeli it was in relation to Msgr. Pozzo's talk -- and, as usual, the post turned into another opportunity to slight the FSSP in relation to the SSPX.

"Fellay, Fellay, Fellay" just about sums up the Rorate Caeli comment box -- and yes, it sounds an awful lot like Angelqueen. This would not be a bad thing -- except that Angelqueen does not have Rev. Fr. L. Demets, FSSP, on the front page.

It is not a question of saying "Come on Rorate, support your own men"; but rather, Come on Rorate, start being honest.

Picard said...



Picard said...

btw., PKTP,
would you please provide again an e-mail adress to contact you privately (as you did here before)?![Thanks.]

Jordanes said...

L.M.N.O.P., not only is Father Demets, FSSP, one of the contributors (even though as a priest he has many more important things to do than contribute weblog entries), but you should note that I also am a contributor (though as a husband and father of six I also have many more important things to do than contribute weblog entries, I do occasionally comment and help moderate).

Adam said...

Somebody mentioned Bl. John XXIII. Pope Benedict XVI is a lot like Bl. John XXIII, at least in his influence on the Church.

Benedict XVI is a liberal (at least according to the classical definition), but flirts with Tradition enough to open doors to traditionalists. Bl. John XXIII was traditional, but flirted with renewal movements enough to open doors to the liberals (and sadly even the modernists).

All we can expect from this pontificate is a throwing of the windows of the Church open for some fresh, traditional air to blow in. It will be up to his truly traditional successor (either immeditate or later on) to bring the traditional revolution into the Church. It's just the reverse of what happened under Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI.

Interesting food for thought . . .

Anonymous said...


It is

I invite everyone here to contact me. I also don't mind all the spam and junk mail that will follow. Bring it on! I get a cetain pleasure deleting it each day, and it's worth it to be contacted by fellow faithful.


L.M.N.O.P. said...

Dear Jordanes,

Perhaps you did not understand my comment. It is misleading to have an FSSP priest listed as a contributor to a site which more often than not juxtaposes, unfavorably, the FSSP with the SSPX.

If Fr. Demets FSSP would actually contribute to the site, it might be easier to comprehend the connection between the FSSP and Rorate Caeli. As it is, the name just sits there like a Tiara that is never worn.

What message is Rorate Caeli sending with Fr. Demets FSSP listed as a contributor? Surely, as one of the leading Traditional Catholic blogs, Rorate Caeli should handle its approach to news media more honestly.

I have seven children but even that does not make my name as influential as that of an FSSP priest.

Since Fr. Demets FSSP is a contributer to this blog, perhaps you can pass along a simple question to him: "Do you know what is being written behind your name on Rorate Caeli?"

Jordanes said...

I understood your comment, L.M.N.O.P., but you do not understand Rorate Caeli, which never "juxtaposes, unfavorably, the FSSP with the SSPX."

Please note the disclaimer above the comment entry field.

Also, to be clear, I did not mention the number of my children to suggest my name has any degree of influence (it certainly has none), but only to explain why my weblog posts here are infrequent, even as Fr. Demets' posts are infrequent since he is occupied in matters even more important than the things that keep me busy day to day.

I mentioned that I am a contributor for a very good reason, however. Regular or longtime visitors here will know that it could never be said of me that I have ever juxtaposed unfavorably the FSSP with the SSPX.

Finally, none of Rorate's contributors have a quota to meet of weblog posts, and none of the contributors hold the FSSP in anything but the greatest esteem (and certainly not in less esteem than the SSPX).

LeonG said...

Unfortunately, Anonymous Said, the post-conciliar papal paradigm has reduced the pope to a mere primus inter pares in any case which leaves him with scarce more authority than his "brother" bishops. This is the current reality which neither tiara nor mitre alters essentially. If t'were not so neither the Ecclesia Dei nor the SP initiatives would have been neutralised as they have been.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what eventually happened to the papal tiara that was given away to the UN and then sold off by them?

Anonymous said...

L.M.N.O.P. and Kentishman seem to think that this blog favours the S.S.P.X over the F.S.S.P. or over this or that. This shows that these chaps are newcomers. Had they been here a while, they would realise how unnuanced their impressions are. First all, we traditionalist cannot be simply divided into S.S.P.X and non-S.S.P.X. As long-timers here know, Im for example, am very strongly sympathetic to but not supportive of the S.S.P.X; and despite my sympathy, I contend that the S.S.P.X has a moral obligation to accept the juridical structure that Rome has several times proferred.

The idea that all 'archtraditionalists' must be Society supporters is bilge water. There are probably Society supporters who think I am too critical of the Pope and there are non-Society supporters who think that the S.S.P.X goes too far or not far enough. And we never criticise the Pope except out of love for him and in the hope that the barbarian calling themselves liberals wlll be soundly defeated.

Why do I get the impression that the usual neo-conservatives want to package all traditionalists into a neat little group and then throw stones at it? Our group is to be defined as those who lack respect for the Pope. No, we have the sort of respect for him that cares when he does or tolerates something injurious to himself or the Church--like represent himself heraldically as an Anglican bishop insead of the Supreme Pontiff whom he is.

But we trads do have some things in common. For example, we all know that the neo-conservative fools who support a 'devout' N.O. are what so many neo-conservatives are: liberals in slow motion.


Anonymous said...

" Bl. John XXIII was traditional, but flirted with renewal movements enough to open doors to the liberals (and sadly even the modernists). "

If you read any history about Bl. John XXIII, it's amazing how traditionalist he really was....and how his gestures were usurped and twisted by the liberals and radicals right after his death.

When he was elected, the Pope was advised to keep the decorations for his coronation as simple as the style of Pius XII. John XXIII, a true lover of the Roman Baroque and Church ceremonial, refused. His famous response regarding decoration and ceremonial for his corronation was " the more, the better!!".

On the eve of his first consistory to create new Cardinals, John XXIII stunned the Papal ceremonies crew by allowing for a return of the extremely long Cadinals train on the cappa magnas. Pius XII had cut the length from about 25 ft. to about 10 feet, considering the long trains ridiculous. John XXIII returned them.

Many of the Lenten pennitential ceremonial and prayers (except for the one about Jews, which John XXIII himself abolished), that Pius XII supressed, John XXIII least for his own personal use.

Pius XII wanted nuns to simplify their religious habits, but John XXIII loved the traditional habits for both monks and he didn't enforce this suggestion.

John XXIII wanted Vatican II to last about three months...alittle longer than the Syond of Bishops held ever 2-3 years at the Vatican nowadays. He just wanted alittle updating of minor things, and clarifications. But the liberals took over and expanded his original agenda. What we got was NOTHING like the simple 3 month meeting to re-inforce Catholic traditions he had planned. The liberals hijacked the Council. Too bad John XXIII didn't sack them he tried to do only 2-3 months before he died. But he was twarted again.

All very sad to read.

LeonG said...

Indeed, Anonymous Said, Pope John XXIII (RIP) was traditional and his acts as Pope demonstrate this to be so. He had his weaknesses and they led to pastoral councils that gave the liberal modernists and other convenient leftist allies the opportunity to impose their disordered vision of Christianity on the majority of us. He was also politically naive where communism was concerned at a time when it needed a sound Catholic & public condemnation. Thankfully, the Councils were pastoral in nature as he insisted which, of course, has not put them beyond merited critical appraisal & the possibility that one day the consequent policies they pursue can be overturned when The Church is truly restored. We might even witness a pope in tiara once again reclaiming his mandate to the Supreme Pontifcate.

Anonymous said...

Disrespectful of the Holy Father? The whole problem is that recent popes have disrespected the Papacy. It is impossible/"disrespectful" to say that popes have made mistakes so the matter is cleverly spun so that it is oh so reasonable. If you are going to all the trouble of being pope then be a pope for Pete's sake (ha!). Where is this "continuity" that is the catch word these days? Benedict XVI is an intelligent man to say the least. He knows exactly what he is doing and what he is still allowing. The buck stops with him and he now has much much more than an absent tiara to answer for.

Anonymous said...

LeonG's remark about the Pope becoming a primus inter pares is interesting and could lead to much reflection here, although I rather doubt that the arms of the Œcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople have been diminished.

We all need to step back and consider what is being done. The business of the tiara, far from being a mere detail, enables us to do that because it is a signal pointing to the truth.

What has happened? In the 1960s, the liberals gained enough momentum to effect a revolution, bringing the Faith in line with its secular-leaning Protestant counterpart. The New Age had arrived. Democracy was its political cause; technology, its hallmark. When all the fools have an equal vote, they vote to enrich one another equally, and all order and form, quality and ceremony are consigned to history. God created all men unequal but a deified man seeks to recast reality.

The leaders of this revolution knew that there would be at least some resistance. There always is. But they knew that a revolution imposed from the top down would gain the support of most in the flock. Catholics were used to following the universal shepherd without question.

They also knew that, to remove the 'spell' of the old Church, they would have to swing to the opposite direction, later swinging back to a middle position once the essentials of the change had been accepted. Hence the balloon Masses and the wildness of the 1970s. Now we are swinging back to a more restrained and ordered centre--but NOT to tradition.



Anonymous said...


The way to handle traditionalists is to delay them into irrelevance. Recognising the S.S.P.X is perfectly possible today and will soon come; it will come because it can have little effect. But had that been done in 1970, the revolution might have been thwarted. So they said then that our Mass was illegal and that the S.S.P.X was schimatical, heretical, abominable, detestable, unthinkable.

Now (aince late in the pontificate of Paul VI, say about 1976) the popes, including the present one, have been gradually letting out the rope on tradition, gradually reclaiming it as a tiny exception on the side, where it can do no harm. The main means for using traditon to usher in not real traditionalism but a new conservatism have included "Quattuor Abhinc Annos" of 1984, "Ecclesia Dei" of 1988, the formation of the F.S.S.P. and others from 1988, the Campos arrangement of 2002 (which set a legal precedent), "Summorum Pontificum" of 2007 and even, to some extent, the new deal for incoming traditionalist Anglicans in 2010. This all accompanies the revision of the N.O. vernacular translations.

As for the S.S.P.X, it has a small but solid following but will grow at a very slow rate. By now, the West has been modernised and few groups like the S.S.P.X can afford to provide much for the poorer nations. So the Society will survive but can have but little effect.

Remember the endless delays waiting for S.P. (and also for the provision for the Anglican incomers)? On and on and on it went and then, finally, it came in July of 2007. We were all making jokes at the time about the document having blown off the Pope's piano and having been found by Cardinal Bertone at the bottom of a bowl of spaghetti.

Sicne 2008, we've been waiting for the clarification that Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos said was coming. It hasn't come but it is no doubt coming, and it may arrive before the lot of us die of old age.

In 2002, in a surprise private response of the P.C.E.D. to a private letter of an Australian faithful, Rome admitted unofficially that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation. Since then, at least fifteen such letters have been issued by the P.C.E.D. I have one myself. Yes, one day, the finding will become official and legal. One fine day, there will also be the international particular church for tradition. By the time final victory arrives, the goals of the victors will be meaningless. Most nominal Catholics have now been raised in a completely traditionless world.

This is why we rely on God and the prayers of our Lady. To God and our our Lady, Satan is puny, whereas, to us, he is enormous. It's all a matter of perspective. So we do plead for the next concessions and wait, knowing that there is Someone behind and beyond the Pope to hear our cry.


Anonymous said...


Brilliant analysis.
When you say: "gradually letting out the rope on tradition, gradually reclaiming it as a tiny exception on the side, where it can do no harm"
my conclusion is: to me it is way better to be in the hard-core traditionalist movement no concessions and no games with the modernist Rome (all those who eventually agree with them will be swallowed without them even realizing it).
Just my personal position.
(excuse me poor English, I am from South America).

Anonymous said...

Man of Kent says: "As everything the Holy Father has done - slowly, slowly. Now it comes out, now it goes back. Its on and off with all sorts of vestments, thrones etc. If Benedict XVI was so ideologically opposed to the Tiara he would permit it on… nothing...".

Respectfully, I have to say I am not convinced by this talk of "Benedictine reforms". It is dangerous to make assumptions, and unless the Pope says what he means with clarity, we are just playing a guessing game. His occasionally wearing traditional vestments, putting a crucifix and six candles on forward facing altars and displaying a tiara is little more than his personal taste. Even his giving Holy Communion on the tongue at Mass gives a mixed message when the the other priests and bishops at the same Masses are giving Holy Communion in the hand. Unless he enforces such actions by making clear statements regulating such things, then people justifiably are left with the sense that everything is optional, one among many ways of doing things.

My observation from living in a large capital city with many Masses is that very few of the "Benedictine Reforms" have been implemented. Even where they have, they ring hollow.

An extra crucifix on the altar and a Roman vestment means very little when Holy Communion continues to be distrubuted by "special ministers" in the hand at the majority of Masses to the majority of the congregation, accompanied by guitar music and folk groups.

A few extra Traditional Masses in this country have little effect when some priests at these Masses allow Holy Communion on the hand, altar girls and offertory processions.

A new translation of the Mass means little because in essence it will be same Novus Ordo. Most priests will continue to rarely use the Roman Canon. The offertory will still be the Jewish blessing prayers, Holy Communion on the hand will prevail.

I would like to hope that things are changing for the better, but really I'm not convinced. "Brick by brick" the confusion continues.

I pray that our Holy Father gives us some unambiguous directives and guidance.


Anonymous said...


Of all the people who have commented on this post JPT, you have been the only one who has said it like it is.

Well said and thank you!

LeonG said...

It reminds me of my favourite desert - Tiaramisu!!


Pascendi said...

"... the neo-conservative fools...."

It is far better to attack the point and not the person.

Kathleen said...

My bet...

There is a lot going on here we don't know.

We need to pray even harder for our Holy Father.

The Sibyl said...

The Tiara is gone...

Yes, I would have prefered for it to remain but hey, is it really that earth shatteringly important?

I know there are those who no doubt believe it is a modernist plot to destroy the Church. (Isn't everything?)

We'll just have to face the fact that until the Papal Coronotion is restored, the tiara will become a fading symbol.

Anonymous said...


What about the Church's tradition for almost the first 1000 years of it's life when no Pope wore a tiara?

Did Peter wear a tiara? Is there a mandate for it in the New Testament?

If the traditionalists want a radical reform to the root then put a crown of thorns on the papal coat of arms.

Pascendi said...

Anonymous 5:59.

Great Point! I had tried to comment on St. Peter a couple of days ago but...

----- traditions come and go.

Each and every Pope over the past century has broken, traditions, brought them back etc. All non-essentials.

Perhaps comments could be gathered on Pope John XXIII disregard of the tradition of solitary strolls in the Vatican gardens (which, no doubt, must have some sinister modernist implication?).

Anonymous said...


Pope John Paul II was correct when he indicated that Lefebvre had an erroneous notion of tradition. The forms of many externals (and sacraments, too), in the Church have changed over time and have varied from region to region. The conflagration of these elements into dogmatic issues is rabbinical. Doctrine develops, too, and general councils have been the medium by which doctrinal development occurs. A butterfly looks entirely different than the caterpillar it was born from, but it's the same organism nonetheless. If only the traditionalists could see that.

Anon 5:59

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"It reminds me of my favourite desert - Tiaramisu!!


LeonG, thanks for the suggestion! I think I'll have tiramusi with a paper tiara on top for my Christmas party!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Why do you hardly ever tell us about something the Fr John Berg has said... for example. The only priest named on the contributors list of this blog is FSSP and all we hear about is Fellay, Fellay."

1) Fr. John Berg hasn't issued many statements

2) Fellay and a handful of SSPX priests, yes, we've published some of their news-worthy statements, especially regarding the SSPX-Vatican Dialogue. We've also published essays from / interviews with Gherardini, Bux, Gagliardi, Carusi, Hilarion Alfeyev (and in the next few days) Scalese, Aulagnier and Rifan. None of this latter group are of the SSPX, none but Gherardini are sympathetic to the SSPX, Bux, Gagliardi and Scalese aren't Traditionalists, and Hilarion isn't even Catholic.

Anonymous said...

I have news for all of you. Benedict XVI cannot be pigeonholed. Obviously his is NO TRADDIE!

Pascendi said...

Anonymous 5:59.

Excellent. What many "traditionalists" are doing is using Trent to condemn Trent. The Mass is the Mass - irrespective of secondary elements. Pope Benedict has now spoken authoritatively on this. Those who believe that the Pope is going to kindle a fire and burn the Missal of Paul VI (this is delusionary thinking).

One may be attached to the Ordinary Form out of a revulsion for the Extraordinary Form. This would obviously be a problem. One may also be attached to the Old Form and reject the New (implicitly rejecting Trent and the Pope). Again a problem. Both reject the Mass - one, as a Modernist, the other as a neo-"Old Catholic".

However, one may be attached out of true love for Christ and His Church while attending either form, or sometimes going to one and then the other. At my church, where both forms are offered, I see holy and devout people at both forms...

The real problem with Vatican II (like Christianity) is that it has never been tried.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said recently: "I have news for all of you. Benedict XVI cannot be pigeonholed. Obviously his is NO TRADDIE!".

This is the precise issue that we are facing in the Church. We have a Pope who cannot be pidgeon-holed. His actions and words are not always clear. We are left guessing what may or may not be his opinion. This is dangerous for us and leads to different sides within the Church all claiming to be truly interpreting the Pope's wishes.

The case of Holy Communion is a good example. The Pope only distributes the Host to communicants who are kneeling and on the tongue. However he has never clearly told us that this is really the way he wishes Holy Communion to always be distributed at other Mases. Adding to the complication is that at the same papal Masses he allows bishops and priests to distribute in the hand. A number of conclusions can be drawn from this: 1, that the Pope by example is showing that he wishes Holy Communion to be always distributed on the tongue. 2,He actually encourages Holy Communion in the hand,(and for some unclear reason he personally gives only on the tongue to a minority at his Masses), 3, he is saying that either option is perfectly legitimate.

The difficulty is that a matter at the very heart of our Holy Faith is a source of confusion and controversy. We have no universal and uniform way by which we can ensure that the reception of Holy Communion will always and everywhere clearly reflect the Churches reverence and doctrine about this Most Holy Sacrament.

Let us pray that our Pope will act and teach with clarity and precision. In the meantime we find security in these controversies by adhering to Tradition, which has developed over time, and has been confirmed by so many holy Popes, Saints, Martyrs and Councils down throught the ages.

John McFarland said...

Since the lex orandi lex credendi thread has been closed, let me post here the following remark of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas:

"The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship."

John McFarland said...


You have it backwards.

It is because of loss or at least weakening of faith in the doctrine of the Eucharist that the current rituals do not express that doctrine.

It is what is in a man that defiles him.