The funeral for the Pope. Just observations.

Norah, it could be because many people assume that Priests have always been celibate. If celibacy is a church law and not dogma, it just requires a change in the law to revert back.

I’m reading Conclave too, good to understand what the procedure is to elect a new pope.

Boz - and others.
Re Roman Catholicism and celibacy- I just looked this up with my Gemini and here's what it says:

While the ideal of celibacy was present in the early Church, it didn't become a universally enforced requirement for the Roman Catholic clergy until the High Middle Ages, specifically around the 11th and 12th centuries.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

* Early Church (1st - 4th Centuries): While figures like Jesus and Paul spoke of the merits of celibacy for those dedicated to God's work, there was no strict rule mandating it for all clergy. Many early Church leaders, including some apostles, were married. However, there was a growing emphasis on sexual continence, particularly for bishops and priests involved in liturgical duties. Local councils, like the Council of Elvira (c. 306 AD), began to issue decrees encouraging or even requiring abstinence from sexual relations for clergy, especially before celebrating Mass.

* Gradual Development (5th - 10th Centuries): Over the centuries, the idea of celibacy as more fitting for the clergy gained traction. Several factors contributed to this, including:
* Influence of monasticism: The rise of monastic orders, where vows of chastity were central, provided a model of dedicated service.
* Concerns about Church property: There were worries that the inheritance of Church property by priests' offspring would lead to its fragmentation and loss of control.
* Growing emphasis on the sacredness of the Eucharist: Some believed that sexual abstinence was necessary for those handling the holy mysteries.

* Formal Enforcement (11th - 12th Centuries): The push for mandatory celibacy intensified during the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th century. Popes like Gregory VII strongly advocated for it as a way to combat corruption, simony (the buying and selling of Church offices), and the perceived worldliness of the clergy.
* First Lateran Council (1123): This council declared clerical marriages invalid.
* Second Lateran Council (1139): This council further solidified the rule, making celibacy a universal requirement for ordination in the Western Church.
It's important to note that even after these councils, the enforcement of celibacy wasn't always uniform or universally accepted. There were instances of married priests and ongoing debates for centuries. However, these councils mark the point where celibacy became the official and increasingly enforced discipline for Roman Catholic priests.

The Eastern Catholic Churches, in communion with Rome, generally allow married men to be ordained as priests, reflecting the older traditions of the Church. However, they typically do not allow priests to marry after ordination, and their bishops are usually chosen from celibate clergy.

So yes, formal enforcement from 11th century.

Yes SueDomin, I, too, was concerned about bald heads getting sunburned especially our own Prince of Wales ! ☀️

Donald Trump fell asleep.

I just read on my iPad news thread that Melania was a body double. Nothing would surprise me. Whoever she was, she looked very elegant which is more than I can say for the orange one with his bright blue suit and tie. The Macrons looked as impeccable as ever.

Why would Catholic Melania not go to the funeral of the Pope? She would be honoured to be going.
Even though it was her birthday.

While the ideal of celibacy was present in the early Church, it didn't become a universally enforced requirement for the Roman Catholic clergy until the High Middle Ages, specifically around the 11th and 12th centuries.

So yes, formal enforcement from 11th century.

My book ('Going to church in Mediaeval England, a scholarly tome) says that despite the formal enforcement, married priests lingered on until the 12th C.

I could understand why Melania wouldn’t want to go anywhere with Donald.

Bazza

I could understand why Melania wouldn’t want to go anywhere with Donald.

She would not miss this.

Conspiracy theories!

Allira

Bazza

I could understand why Melania wouldn’t want to go anywhere with Donald.

She would not miss this.

Conspiracy theories!

I do like a good conspiracy theory! 🤣

Apparently Malania's four words to Trump at the Sign of peace were, You should do it..
That of course could another conspiracy theory. 😉

I concur with Sue421. There are longstanding rules re dress & behaviour when it comes to funerals of whatever faith, that encompass dignity respectfulness, and sombre peaceful reflection. I also know hypocrisy when I see it. The use of mobile phones/texting, availing oneself of a photo opportunity, taking selfies! networking and contriving to use such an occasion to discuss war, again headline grabbing, is beyond the realms of decency.

There are longstanding rules re dress & behaviour when it comes to funerals of whatever faith, that encompass dignity respectfulness, and sombre peaceful reflection.

Well, I've been to funerals (far too many) in recent years where we've been asked to wear something red, something bright, where amusing anecdotes have been included in the eulogies and the final piece of music has been uplifting, amusing and even brought a smile to the face.

I'm sure I saw one of the Cardinals take a photo on his mobile.

I'm sure I saw one of the Cardinals take a photo on his mobile..

He wouldn't have been able to do it in my church, Cardinal or not. There are signs everywhere, stating that all mobile phones must be switched off. 😉

It’s not what they’re wearing,it's the fact they were there !!
That’s what shows their respect Not their clothes!! 🙄

DeeDe

It’s not what they’re wearing,it's the fact they were there !!
That’s what shows their respect Not their clothes!! 🙄

So if someone turned up in a vest top and ripped jeans, that would be OK?

I once saw a male dressed like that at a funeral, he stood out like a sore thumb, next to the other mourners, who were all dressed in suits.
That manner of dress would be deemed unrespectful in a Catholic church.

I should have said, disrepectful. Brain fog this morning.

DeeDe is obviously right.
"Come as you are" is better than not coming.


Whe I was a girl we used a church that was next to a massive factory. Some worked on Sundays and the main elements of the mass were timed with the factory lunch break.

Dozens of men would come "late" and leave "early". As I got older this was really quite moving. It mattered not a bit that they were in work clothes.

I often think of that little church and its congregation.

I agree that the most important thing is actually coming. During the week our parishioners are casually dressed, but on a Sunday most make an effort. It is something ingrained in me since childhood.

However, it doesn't take much effort to dress in a tidy and respectful manner.

Marydoll

^I'm sure I saw one of the Cardinals take a photo on his mobile.^.

He wouldn't have been able to do it in my church, Cardinal or not. There are signs everywhere, stating that all mobile phones must be switched off. 😉

I'm 99% positive I saw it but can't find it now!
Perhaps he's been excommunicated.

Marydoll

DeeDe

It’s not what they’re wearing,it's the fact they were there !!
That’s what shows their respect Not their clothes!! 🙄

So if someone turned up in a vest top and ripped jeans, that would be OK?

I once saw a male dressed like that at a funeral, he stood out like a sore thumb, next to the other mourners, who were all dressed in suits.
That manner of dress would be deemed unrespectful in a Catholic church.

No, sensible clothes are fine.
They're not sensible.

DH was upset when he went to the funeral of someone he knew who had been a local Councillor and history buff who was always smartly dressed. DH wore his charcoal grey suit and black tie. The man's son, who gave the eulogy, was wearing casual trousers, open-necked shirt and an old fleece.

Just wondering - who designed the uniform for the Swiss Guard? 🤔

Allira

Just wondering - who designed the uniform for the Swiss Guard? 🤔

Uniforms and weaponry

The guards normally wear blue doublets and blue berets, but on ceremonial occasions they don the colorful Renaissance-era uniforms for which they are famous. They are among the oldest uniforms in continuous use, though contrary to legend, Michelangelo did not design them. In fact, the design is largely the work of Jules Repond, who served as commander of the guard between 1910–21. The tunics are striped in the colors of the Medici family: red, dark blue, and yellow. White ruffs and high plumed helmets (with ostrich feathers colored to reflect different ranks) are also worn, as, on occasion, is armor. While in traditional dress, the guards carry halberds and swords, but they are also trained in the use of modern weaponry and counterterrorism techniques..

And they’re not just there for decoration!

As is common with any elite military corps, competition is intense for inclusion in the Swiss Guards. New recruits must be unmarried Roman Catholic males with Swiss citizenship, between 19 and 30 years of age, and at least 5 feet 8.5 inches (1.74 meters) tall. In addition, they must have a professional diploma or high school degree and must complete basic training with the Swiss military. (Historically, new recruits also had to prove they were free of physical deformities, and commanding officers were traditionally of noble lineage.) After five years of service, they may marry, as long as they are age 25 or older. Those who marry must commit to an additional three years of service.

Goodness! Thank you Daddima

I was just musing about the comments saying that black and sombre colours should be worn for funerals as a matter of respect and there were the Cardinals in red and the Swiss Guard in their colourful uniforms. Certainly no lack of respect there.

Interestingly my husband and I looked at exactly this earlier today.
We came up with some little videos of their training in armour too.

The armour was only over the body and head - not the legs.