The Papal Triple Crown and the Jewish High Priest's Miter

Taken from Singing in the Reign, Michael Barber's and Dr. Brant Pitre's blog, above title is link to article.

by Dr. Brant Pitre

In order to celebrate the feast of Christ the King (the final day of the liturgical year, celebrated yesterday), I wanted to post just a brief piece of background on the Papal Triple Crown (frequently referred to as the papal "tiara"). Although it is little known, this crown has its roots (surprise!) in ancient Judaism. In particular, we find a direct parallel in the miter that was worn by the Jewish high priest!

Josephus--himself a first-century Jewish priest--gives us a detailed description of the High Priest's miter:

" The high priest's miter was the same that we described before, and was wrought like that of all the other priests; above which there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another ; out of which arose a cup of gold..." (Josephus, Antiquities, 3.172; trans. Whiston, p. 90)

This liturgical head-gear was based on the description of the high priest's miter found in the book of Exodus:

"And you shall make a plate of pure gold, and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, "Holy to the LORD." And you shall fasten it on the miter (LXX mitras ) by a lace of blue; it shall be on the front of the mitre. It shall be upon Aaron's forehead..." (Exodus 28:36-38)

With such descriptions, we find the Jewish background for description of Christ as high-priestly Son of Man in the Van Eyck triptych I attached above (see picture). We also discover the background for the Catholic tradition that the Pope, as the successor to Peter, is not simply the chief bishop, but the High Priestly Vicar of Christ. I'm only speculating--perhaps someone could confirm this--but could the triple crown signify the threefold office: (1) Priest, (2) Prophet, and (3) King?

Along these lines, one day Michael and I will do a post on how Peter is depicted as the new High Priest in the Gospel of Matthew. For now, I will simply note the contrast between the confession of Peter at Caeasarea Philippi and the (anti-)confession of the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas at Jesus' Trial before the Sanhedrin:

Caiaphas, the old High Priest

"Tell us if you are the Christ,
the Son of God" (Matt 26:63)

Peter, the New High Priest

"You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16)

Long live Christ the King and Priest!!!

Read More...

Summary only...

EWTN Jewish Roots of the Mass Pt 1 Video

Click on the "Read More" link for the video.





If you liked this one, Part 3 of the series is also online here, and Part 4 here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nicean Blues Video

Click on the Read More Link for video. (Title above links to the singer's blog)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Man of the Century Has Died...to Virtual Silence

by Michael Ledeen
He was a Polish Jew, born Victor Spielman, which he changed to Victor Grayevsky after he found that “Spielman” was just too Jewish for an ambitious young Pole. He went to school in Kazakhstan, then returned to Poland at the end of the war, where he joined the Communist Party and made a bit of a name for himself as a journalist. In the mid-fifties he followed his parents and sister to Israel, where he ran a lot of the broadcasting to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

And so? And so, he was arguably one of the most important men of the twentieth century, for he was the person who obtained the advance text of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, the one delivered in February, 1956, the one that laid out the crimes of Stalin for the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party. That text was a turning point in the Cold War. Grayevsky gave it to the Israeli Embassy, where it was copied and sent to Israel. The Shin Bet intelligence service delivered it by courier to James Jesus Angleton, the head of CIA counterintelligence (and the CIA’s liaison with the Israelis), who gave it to CIA chief Allen Dulles, who gave it to President Eisenhower.

Read the rest of the story at Michael Ledeen's blog.

Read More...

Summary only...

On Right and Wrong

"You can’t choose right and wrong, you’ve got to choose between right and wrong."

Reading the interview with Justice Clarence in Imprimis , Justice Thomas said,

"You can’t choose right and wrong, you’ve got to choose between right and wrong. There’s a wonderful encyclical by Pope John Paul where he talks about the mistake that Adam and Eve made. They thought they could choose right and wrong as opposed to choosing between the two. Modern nihilists and relativists think that we can decide or make up right and wrong. People like my grandfather understood that there was right and wrong, as certain as that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And they made their choices between the two."

I think this is where my confusion with the idea of the "gray" area comes from. Maybe "gray area" is used in two different ways. Too often, I know, the term "gray area" is used, but what is meant is that right and wrong has evolved or changed. This is not possible, because God is immutable, unchangeable, and right and wrong is intrinsically rooted in His Deity.

To my way of thinking, the "gray area" is figuring out how new technology and ideas relate to right and wrong as revealed to us in the past. Ideas and technologies may, in and of themselves, be inherently "right" or "wrong," but many times, they may, in fact, be neutral--it is our reasons for developing or using them that make them either right or wrong. The scenario gets really murky when we begin to dissemble as to the real reasons that we are doing or promoting something, sometimes leaving even ourselves in the dark as to our own true motivations. (This is the reason that the Sacrament of Penance is so important on a regular basis, as it promotes an examen of conscience, accountable to one who is in persona Christi.)

The intricacies of the gray area, then, are not that man determines right or wrong, but that his intentions and use of ideas and technologies can render them either right or wrong.

Mother Church, our bishops, and priests often seem to fear telling us right from wrong, but that is wrong. There are always circumstances that must be taken into account but right and wrong never changes, and properly formed consciences seek knowledge of all aspects of situations before choosing action. Holy Mother Church should forthrightly name right right and call wrong wrong, while simultaneously putting forth the reasons and ways in which the intentions behind the ideas and technologies in question may be right or wrong.

Life is sacred, and the willful taking of innocent life is always wrong, and passing laws which make such murder legal is wrong and will jeopardize our salvation, whether we have or perform an abortion, pay for one, draft the law, vote for it, or vote for those who vote for it. Then, there must be discussion as what we should do if faced with a slate of candidates who all support abortion. The same goes for all other moral issues.

There needs to be a return to civility in the Public Square where we can discuss political issues, without name-calling. We need to be able to discuss the rectitude of actions, ideas, and technologies, based upon faith and reason--always with humility and open to the fact that circumstances and motivation may change, even though right and wrong, like God, never do.

Read More...

Summary only...