[NYer]

Catholic, ping

[Alex Murphy]

The papacy is indeed a monarchy that directs Catholics to their spiritual end: union with God forever. From the late Roman Empire through the nineteenth century, it was also very much a temporal monarchy ruling over a large territory, the Papal States, in central Italy. The temporal authority was seen as necessary to guarantee the papacy’s independence and – more important – his spiritual authority. Hence popes adopted the trappings of European monarchs, though some of these externals also took on religious import because of the dual nature of the papal office.

In 1870 the Papal States were lost to the newly unified Kingdom of Italy. In hindsight, this has been a great gain for the Church: no longer was the pope a temporal ruler in a particular locale, but a spiritual and moral force who spoke to all peoples of the earth. Yet external trappings of the papacy, including the kissing of the pope’s slipper and the wearing of the triple tiara, remained well into the twentieth century.

Two factors combined to cause reconsideration – and ultimately, the pruning – of the associated regal forms. First, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed the “universal call to holiness” and a refocus on the Gospel, which was to be preached in a manner that fit the times. Second, in almost every nation during the 1960s, attitudes were shifting quickly and dramatically toward democratic egalitarianism and cultural informality. The ceremonial practices that honored the papacy not only ceased to be understood, but were viewed as inappropriate for such a Christian office.

Ping for later

[Mrs. Don-o]

What I'm interested in here is --- if I could put it in the form of a chart -- a side-by-side comparison of, say, the 9th or 10th century papacy with the 21st century papacy in terms of its jurisdictional reach, its relations with local Western bishops, its relations with the non-Latin Catholic Churches (the Churches of the East) and its relationship to the bishops' collegial authority in an Ecumenical Council.

My questions: what's changeable and what's not? What's development of doctrine and what's historic-cultural accretion? What would make a man like Russian Metropolitan Hilarion say "Yes, that's the ministry of Peter among us" and what would make him say "No, that's something else"?

I don't care about the shoes, for Pete's sake. I care about Pete!

[arthurus]

There is nothing new about Francis. The Church needs and is given one such from time to time.

[SevenofNine]

I really now liking this Pope LOL!

[terycarl]

TOTAL nonsense....the Vatican owns all that stuff...the gold this, the ermine that, the Mercedes...what’s the difference whether or not he uses them. The U.S. owns a real nice airplaane and the president is allowed to use it when ever he wants.....is that opulance...I thunk not, it’s just stuff and somebody already owns it.