Tiaras, gloves, and jeweled rings are for the Queen of England.
Thank God Paul VI rid the Papacy of its monarchical trappings.
Christ is risen and he no longer needs a place to rest his head.
Wrong. Christ did, and still does, identify with the poor. As should we.
The Catholic Church is about the triumphant King of Glory.
Pure silliness. The Catholic Church is about leading men to God, not lording over them like a prince.
Pius X was, no doubt, a good man, since he smoked an occasional cigar.
The crowds chant for John Paul II because they love him. And that's as it should be.
First, I'd like you to prove that tiaras, gloves and jeweled rings are exclusively for the Queen of England. I'm sure you are twice the man that Richard the Lionheart was for not wearing what he wore. Second the modern monarchy in England is a fake. She's not Catholic. Pathetic attempt at baiting. Any new tricks? You simply don't know the symbolism behind these ornaments. Men running around in bathrobes on Sundays during the Novus Ordo tells us a lot more about who the "Queens" are and what they prefer to wear. You prattle on about the 'shoes' of the fisherman or the Ring of the Fisherman but when someone actually wears real shoes and real rings you have a hissy fit. This is the Protestant separation of the material world from the spiritual (which is really just the emotional/psychological world and not the supernatural)
Thank God Paul VI rid the Papacy of its monarchical trappings.
So, you're going to blast John XXIII for keeping them? You simply don't understand and bash it as a reactionary. The papacy must be seen as part of it's temporal effectiveness. You seem to want it to hide in the shadows. Are you for the movement to have the Pope no longer reside in the Vatican apartments? If so, why? If not, why do you think there is a movement for this?
Christ is risen and he no longer needs a place to rest his head.
Wrong. Christ did, and still does, identify with the poor. As should we.
What does that have to do with honoring God and the Divinely instituted office of the papacy? Apples and oranges. Judas had the same thought as you and Christ pointed out that Mary Magdelene was correct in honoring him. It's estimated that the oil she used would have cost 300 silver pieces. So we do the same honoring of him for his Vicar. " For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always." One can do both honor to the poor and Christ. It doesn't have to be an either/or as you've presented it. Judas the liberal "concerned" about the poor, sold Our Lord out for 1/10th of that amount.
The Catholic Church is about the triumphant King of Glory.
The Catholic Church is about leading men to God,
I guess God is the lucky one then. Right? I find this denial of God as being glorious and triumphant disturbing.
not lording over them like a prince.
That is pure silliness. Popes are far more than princes. And you just don't get it that the Pope is bigger than the man who is the Pope. The robes and jewels and pomp and circumstance are about the papacy. They obscure the man so from century to century you know who the Pope is and he generally looks the same. Leaders need symbols to lead. That is a human fact that you can't escape. Just as collar and cassock give the sermon on the death of the secular man and the rebirth of the priest. Just as candles represent the light that is Christ and incense the prayers ascending to Heaven.
Pius X was, no doubt, a good man, since he smoked an occasional cigar.
Yes. THAT must be what made him a good man. Not his uncompromising devotion to being the guardian of the deposit of faith.
The crowds chant for John Paul II because they love him. And that's as it should be.
They don't "love" him any more than any other celebrity. They barely know anything about him. Bruce Springsteen will get an identical reaction. They know nothing about what the papacy is. He's demoted it to the level of Pop personality. If they loved the papacy, they wouldn't need to act like animals in front of the Pope and if he loved the papacy he would forget himself and treat the office with the dignity it deserves.
What's wrong with the Queen of England? You forget that the Church is also a monarchy, not a democracy, and the Pope is its monarch. He is also the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City and therefore it would be entirely appropriate for him to dress the part.
Thank God Paul VI rid the Papacy of its monarchical trappings.
Oh yes, the replacement of monarchical splendor and grandeur with phony democratic humility (as you know, the post-Vatican II Church still displays truly reprehensible "clericalism" in its protection of wrongdoing bishops and priests) has been such a blessing to the Church, with most Catholics now under the erroneous impressions that they can believe and do whatever they like, and that "Democracy" is the Church's preferred form of government.
Paul VI did his best to destroy everything beautiful and impressive in Catholicism, and therefore was a far more despicable figure than the most corrupt or extravagant Renaissance pope. At least Alexander VI and Leo X understood that people who aren't naturally spiritual or religious need displays of earthly magnificence to help them elevate their thoughts towards the Kingdom of Heaven.
The same goes for Paul VI's deplorable disbanding of the Noble Guard and the Palatine Guard of Honor. Ancient aristocratic families that had served the Church for centuries were sent packing without a hint of gratitude, supposedly to improve the Church's credibility in the Third World (as if it had ever occurred to anyone in Africa to be bothered by the ceremonial privileges of Roman nobility). The real motive, as with much else since Vatican II, was hatred of tradition and embarrassment about anything that linked the Church with pre-1789 Europe--her most glorious era.