h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was disappointed to discover (after much searching) that to be crowned pope is not the same thing as to be made the Bishop of Rome. For some reason I had always thought that they were connected.

The actual placing of the crown of the head of the ultimate prince of the church has now been abandoned and the triple crown or tiara has now been accepted for keeping by the United States in an act of astonishing irony. Instead, the latest rite resonates with Peter's leadership of the church in Rome in 50AD and the pope's role in fostering and extending that legacy. All sorts of pilgrimages were included in the coronation rite to reinforce this connection.

Yet we note that, for several months, the pope is just a cardinal. While he presumably is a bishop, he could just as easily be one of the cardinal deacons. It doesn't matter; even in a community that holds the ideals of apostolic succession as a fundamental requirement of salvation. His succession as bishop in the Cathedral Church of St John's Lateran is subordinate to his coronation as prince of the church in St Peter's Basilica.

It can be argued that because the pope provides leadership to the Roman Catholic Church, his coronation should happen at the earliest time. I do not agree. All bishops share in the succession of the apostles. To some are given the eminence of being an archbishop, fewer a primate, to a very few a patriarch. To the Bishop of Rome is given the titles of archbishop, primate and Patriarch of Rome. In the order of patriarchal eminence, the patriarchy of Rome is the first. But principally he is and must be considered a bishop in a diocese and from that all of this other rights and privileges extend.

Consider the historical weirdness if he were still to be Archbishop of Munich and he were to die between his coronation and translation to the See of Rome. Here would be a pope who died as the bishop of a German provincial city! Would that make Munich, if only for a time, the Holy See?

Rabble rouser.

It will be all sorted today, the Feast of St John Laterine. Pope Bennie will be known as the Bish.

Sorry about that - firstly for the spelling it should be St John Lateran (it comes from the latin!). Secondly the 9th of November is the feast of the dedication of St John Lateran: today is the alternative Feast of St John the Divine if it is moved from the 28th of December.

There you go.



PS: given you are the only cat to have responded to my comment, presumably you are the only rousable rabble round here.

As a non-Catholic and with relatively little exposure to the meaning behind most of their traditions much of what they do makes little sense to me. Your posting did however, and sounded a bit too insightful for the masses celebrating the world's new Pope.

What is the bit about the tiara residing in the US? (Somehow I can't imagine a pope in a tiara. It sounds a bit Saturday Night Live-ish.)

The tiara is a triple crown: each of the crowns have their own meaning, which are, I think: "Father of Princes and Kings; Ruler of the World; and Vicar of Our Savior Jesus Christ on earth".

There is more information, including pictures, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Tiara. Doing straight searches on google for this stuff is scary. There is so much conspiracy theory about the pope out there that it makes you wonder if the pope really is a cosmically significant person!

One of the tiaras was made out of paper mache (however it is spelt) which is very Saturday Night Live.

Fascinating...

And people say women are fashion conscious.

There is no comparison to be made between women and professional, single men (gay or not)!

Do you realise that I can't spell Biship and that there is no obvious way to fix the title of this little polemic?

I never noticed the misspelled Bishoops... Perhaps because I figured that you were most likely using Queen's English rather than the American kind.

Back to tiaras, when I was at Notre Dame (In South Bend, Indiana) I had an opportunity to peruse the Basillica. It is quite impressive and, aside from the relic room, beautiful. (I found the relic room creepy.) They had a crown on display in the Basillica. It was not a tiara - never intended to be. Rather it was this huge crown about 1/2 meter around at the "head" part and bulging out from there. It was a gift from somewhere and so on display.

I suppose it is sacrilege, but it seems that the US Catholic church could get out of its money woes by selling some of these items. Do you think the church believes they are holy even if they are not used as part of worship?

The trouble with selling the "crown jewels" (as it were) is, in my so humble opinion, messy.

Often these objects were acquired/given with the very real expectation that they would be kept in trust and (where appropriate) in use. To sell off things which have since become (more) valuable to solve a short term cash crisis undermines the faith of the giver.

A lot of religious people find the modern evangelical focus on words, words and more words (and little action except where it reinforces the words) empty. They enjoy putting their bodies on the line for their religion (not in a silly way, but with say fasting, alms-giving _and_ prayer). Often the space and objects form an integral part of their spiritual life. While I don't go in for relics myself, time and cultural norms do shift and what is crazy today maybe very powerful in the future. A good treasury takes centuries to acquire - if you sell them off when they become unfashionable then future generations loose whatever benifits they may have gained.

There is an argument here about the local bishop's house which is big, has a huge garden and is centrally located. Even 50 years ago the house and garden were in use every few weeks because, even though it was technically private, public figures were expected to throw open their houses regularly and generously. Currently this it is no longer the case and there is a lot of pressure to sell the place. My view is that in 100 years who knows how it will all work: our generation's sense of modest living is not going to be tomorrow's. Such a facility will be difficult (i.e. impossible) to re-acquire.

You do know that crown jewels is slang for something else right? (At least I got a bit of humor out of free associating the whole messy, Catholic church, crown jewels thing.)

Anyway, I guess I understand where you're coming from. I have a much different perspective. We (our church) have bought and sold parsonages and church buildings as was needed. There hasn't really been much thought to the idea that one building provides a better legacy for future generations than another due to its history. In our case, the money from the sale of our current church building, in its landlocked-prime-downtown location can fund a new building that can hold three times the number of attendees. We need the space. Somebody else is willing to pay dearly for our location. The nicest thing in our church building is its stained glass windows, so we would just take them with us if we moved. Whoever bought the property would tear the building down anyway.

A facet of our religion is the idea that it isn't good to get too attached to anything other than God. I suppose that perspective is both good and bad. God is preeminent but there is a benefit to traditions that we sometimes miss.

Regarding undermining the faith of the giver, we have so much stuff crammed into the storage cabinets all over our building. It doesn't get used and is really more of a problem than a help. The stuff is kept because it was given to us. I think there comes a point in which the gift becomes a burden and a church needs a statute of limitations of sorts. If we hang onto something forever, even if it has no use and just takes up space how are we ministering to the giver? Particularly, as in our case, when the giver is often dead.

For instance we had this map that someone had made in the 1950s. It was all cut-out painted wood pieces and had little lights where we had missionaries stationed. Needless to say, by 2000 it was completely out of date as well as very tacky. We took it off the sanctuary wall (can you believe it was still hanging there?) and the giver's great nephew or some such thing complained that it had been removed. Our response was, if you would like to update the map to present-day as well as keep it maintained as our missionaries come and go, we will put it back up. Interestingly, he declined.

It seems that sometimes people expect a church to hang on to their stuff simply because they like seeing the family name on the wall or item. Why not simply put a plaque on the wall that says "Thanks to our donors" and list the names. Throw the actual stuff away (sell the stuff that might have any usefulness) and move on.

Another case in point. We have three sets of hymnals and right now, we don't even use hymnals. We have the two older sets because they were donated. The really sad thing is that there are churches that would love to get those hymnals. We could donate them and really help another church out. It just drives me nuts - probably because I'm a neat freak. I can't stand to see all that wasted stuff and wasted space. How must it look to our guests?

Anyway, I can understand the perspective that givers might expect that donated items would be kept in perpetuity but I don't think that is fair or reasonable to the church. In the instance you gave about a valuable parsonnage being under-utilized but possibly having future value, I would ask where is the greater need? Is your church in a financial position where holding onto the building provides no hardship? Then keep it. But if there is a hardship why would possible future benefit outweight the current need?

In the extreme it is like a wealthy person saying, I'm not going to give to the poor today because I might need my money tomorrow. To some degree we all do that. We protect our assets and secure our own futures. But I think it is dangerous to give too much weight to an unknown future benefit.

A very challenging post. I have spent a lot of time considering it! I agree that it is far too easy for a church to become an organisation rather than the living body of Christ: and spend more time looking after its assets than its doingness.

On the other hand what sort of life do we want for our children (or our friends' children)? Many churches that freely part with land, hymnals or windows, tenatiously hang onto ideas and models of justification and rightousness. I wonder how many churches free of the idols of property, idolise ideas. Some churches are famous for idolising both...

I have the impression that you, as a cat, steer clear of these shallow human foibles even if you watch others leap into them and wallow. For myself I try to avoid them, recognising that communing with the living God means letting go first, but I _am_ human and regularly fail.

For myself I think the church should hang onto what is useful (or otherwise un-reobtainable) for the future, use what is handy for the moment and not get too caught up in fighting about it. Many churches are in society for the long haul and aim to make a long term difference (mine), others aren't. I think all of them would like to leave a good legacy for their children.



PS: I still don't know what I think about all this!

You are so right about people hanging on to the lesser while easily letting the greater go. Too often we quibble about the length of a skirt rather than the condition of a soul -- as if one is an indicator of the other.

Our sermon this past Sunday dealt with the idea that we are to be the hands and feet of Christ: doing and acting on His behalf. That is a very difficult concept for me. I am a cat -- not particularly interested in personal entanglements -- how can I love the way that Christ loved? A little voice deep inside asks do I really want to?

As much as I consider the wastefulness of the stuff piled about our church building, you are right, I also need to consider the people and the long-term impact not only as it relates to the item's worth, but also as it relates to the people the item affects.

Perhaps I should have more compassion for those that need their gift to be perceived as valuable rather than the actual value of the gift. After all, I'm sure there is someone out there that would sneer at my best as well.

I am humbled.

I was replying to the other thread about our holiday when our building lost power and I lost my typing. Going back to my home space I saw this thread and re-read it (including my opening rant).

There has to a distinction between things given for the day (month, year, era) and things given which are fundamental to the community. Hymnals are good while they are being used - but if you upgrade to a different style of singing or just a new hymn book then you give the old ones away. A name of the wall can commemorate the fact of the gift long after the gift is lost/broken/disposed of.

Nothing should be held onto without good reason. A legacy for the next generation is a good reason as is somebody doing something with it. No legacy - be it a memory of a great pastor (one church in these parts is being crushed by the failure of each new paster to live up to the memory of the pastor from the 70s and 80s), a book or missionary tracking map should get in the way of a dynamic relationship with God and each other.

I sort-of-understand the biblical basis for the hands and feet of Christ stuff. But cats don't have hands and they get twice as many feet. And their jobs include protecting people from the dangers of the night and they don't go around fishing or indeed go around anywhere they can get their paws wet. And anyway if we are going to do the hands and feet thinking, does that mean we are going to try and double guess God. Do we choose what brand of food we will be asking Sue to buy for our bowl tonight as if we were God? Clearly we can be sensitive and aware but the choosing between beef flavour and chicken is possibly not when we should asking WWJD.

So when should we ask? I am with Slatibartfast on this one. He said that we should hang the sense of it and just have a good time. In most ways it doesn't help, but it does stop us worrying.

Oooooh! Thou speakest sacriledge to the Baptisticly indoctrinated. (I love it!)

What are the hands and feet of Christ? Now, in the Bible that seems to be a lot of feeding the hungry, housing and clothe'ing the poor and generally caring for those less fortunate than ourselves. It also would probably include showing mercy to those who offend us, offering grace to those whom we otherwise could condemn and maybe even a healing or two -- assuming we're divine (which we're not).

In the Baptist church the hands and feet of Christ also teach Awanas, repair and maintain the church building, drive the elderly to church, etc. Knowing the way I drive (you can imagine how a cat drives) I should not be offering rides to the elderly. Nor would it be wise for me to pick up a hammer. In fact, even me teaching children can be a bit controversial from time to time (I guess I'm supposed to just tell them what to think not ask them what they think).

We, in our church, seem to believe that we rarely interact with the "truly needy" so we define our hands and feet-ness differently. Rightly? I'm not positive. You called it double guessing God. An interesting perspective as I've had it drummed in to me that we are supposed to be able to figure out what God wants us to be doing.

One of my ephipanies in the past year (along with letting go of the whole kid thing) has been to let go of the idea that there is some feline standard of righteousness that I'm supposed to be striving to meet. In lieu of never measuring up, I've elected to seek continual, gradual, persistent and considered growth. Some has been painful.

Not all of my growth would be considered spiritual by my standard-ized human friends. Some of them have decided that I'm a bit subversive because I've been trying very hard to challenge myself to make my own decision about "the way things are done".

Fortunately, Gordy and Sue are proceeding down this path as well. Together, we talk about the things that we've always accepted as the rule and we challenge ourselves to support it with reasoned argument, accept that it is faith based and therefore an unreasoned argument or discard it.

And finally, I believe that you are absolutely correct that at some point we have to accept who we are (who God made us to be) and learn to live joyfully in our own fur.

Merry Christmas!

I actually suspect that Christ did a lot less feeding the poor and releasing the captives than Judas would have liked (that's me playing on one popular conception of what motivated Judas). I have no doubt in the strictly Jewish world of the zeroth century, good works and great acts of charity were regularly practiced by the very people who criticised Christ's actions.

What Christ did (as opposed to what anybody else has done) is redeem the human race and reconciled us back with God. So maybe when we ask WWJD, we should judge it purely by the critrea: is it redemptive for ourselves and for others?

To work that out, I strongly believe that one requires all of the gifts God has given: paws/hands/feet, awakeness at night, the person/people one adopts to feed and deflea one, brains, intuition, prayer, singing (at night) etc. Nothing is off the list really - if God has given you fur, then make the best use you can of it (by swallowing and then coughing it up under funiture maybe).

Yes, but redeeming the human race and reconciling us back with God (or facilitating rather than hindering that effort) is far more difficult than scurrying busily about. Furthering that particular work of Christ is very personal and subjective and therefore not something that can be yelled from a pulpit at the busily scurrying masses. It requires contemplation and wilful choice and submission as well as a recognition of the ability that God places in us to accomplish... Right. What you said. (I do realize that Christ spent a lot of time dining with sinners and such but that isn't something that good baptists can readily put into action. - Not a excuse, rather a statement of fact. We're not really sure where to go to get sinners that would want to be fed by us.)

By the way, we don't ask WWJD. We ask WDJD. What did Jesus do? As you observed though, it is greatly subject to interpretation. We also have FROG (fully relying on God) and I don't know what else. I don't have Christian thingys like that because I figure the moment I put a Christian bumper sticker on my car someone will catch me speeding and think, "Some Christian." I won't passively point people toward Christianity because I'm afraid I'll actively do the opposite.

Finally, I do not hack up hairballs under furniture or anywhere else for that matter. My pets purchase special food for me so that I don't have to suffer that indignity. (They are very well trained.) And I try to limit my nightime carousing to no more than one night a week. Frankly, I'm quite sure I'm a constant joy to be around.

I recall that Christ spent a lot of time wining and dining at pharasies' houses (and then being visited by sinners whose presence scandalised the up-right households). So you might not need to dine with outright sinners - you can dine with the nobs instead! The food is better and is served in silver bowls rather than plastic (although I presume you still have to eat off the floor).

We are all sinners. If I have to go to someone's house to eat, I will try and find a sinner who can cook.



PS: I am sure that nob is short for noble and is not a 'what it sounds like' word.