Relics don't make the papacy. Popes have given away relics for some time as gestures of goodwill.Please give an example of a pope (obviously pre-Vat II) who gave a sacred relic to any non-Catholic.
Were these relics that rightly belonged to the Eastern Orthodox, but were taken from them by force at some point? Or were these relics that belonged to Rome that Francis just up and gave away? 'cause that does seem different.They always belonged to Rome, the article even quotes the Orthodox admitting that and expressing their bewilderment at the gift.
Were these relics that rightly belonged to the Eastern Orthodox, but were taken from them by force at some point? Or were these relics that belonged to Rome that Francis just up and gave away? 'cause that does seem different.
These relics can only rightfully belong to the Holy Catholic Church, not to any schismatic sect. They were not Bergoglio's to give away.:applause: Some people just don’t get it!
You do understand that the major churches in Rome belong to the Patriarchs right. The Popes church is the Lateran. St. Peters belongs to Constantinople, etc. You can't actually give away relics that already belong to someone else. For good or ill the mutual excommunication was lifted by Paul VI.
in 2006, Pope Benedict XVI officially renamed the "patriarchal basilicas" as "Papal basilicas".[6] The five, formerly styled "patriarchal basilicas" of Rome, were previously assigned to and associated with the five ancient patriarchates of the Latin Church, or the Pentarchy:[7]
Saint John Lateran was associated with Rome (Patriarch of the West),
Saint Peter's with Constantinople (Latin Patriarch of Constantinople),
Saint Paul's with Alexandria (Latin Patriarch of Alexandria),
Saint Mary Major with Antioch (Latin Patriarch of Antioch), and
Saint Lawrence with Jerusalem (Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem).
Historical fact, abandoned by Benedict XVI who changed the name from patriarchal basilicas to Papal basilicas
Relics don't make the papacy. Popes have given away relics for some time as gestures of goodwill.
Historical fact, abandoned by Benedict XVI who changed the name from patriarchal basilicas to Papal basilicasNotice it says LATIN Patriarch of Constantinople. That is NOT the Orthodox schismatic patriarch.
When eastern Catholic patriarchs come to Rome they say the liturgy in those churches. It's no different than when a cardinal is given a church, it's his church till he dies
Funny thing before the schism and at Florence it was used by the orthodox. Not sure what your point is :)First of all, no, you're wrong. The Orthodox admitted themselves that they have never owned this artifact before. Secondly, you're dismissing the schism as if it's a matter of little import. It is most certainly NOT. The Orthodox have, ever since the schism, been severed from the Church of Jesus Christ. You are defending the handing of artifacts over to heretics and schismatics who even themselves admitted they had no claim to them.
First of all, no, you're wrong. The Orthodox admitted themselves that they have never owned this artifact before. Secondly, you're dismissing the schism as if it's a matter of little import. It is most certainly NOT. The Orthodox have, ever since the schism, been severed from the Church of Jesus Christ. You are defending the handing of artifacts over to heretics and schismatics who even themselves admitted they had no claim to them.This X 10.
Reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I said they have historically said liturgy in the churches in question. Not they have the relicsWhich is firstly, completely irrelevant to the matter of the relics and something you brought up as a distractionary tactic. And secondly, that Constantinople owned the church pre-Schism is irrelevant because the Ecuмenical Patriarch is not the legal valid heir of the Constantinople Patriarchate within the Church, he is a schismatic with no claim to it. The LATIN Patriarch is the one who has, since the Schism, been said to own it.
Reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I said they have historically said liturgy in the churches in question. Not they have the relicsYou were "countering" my point that the church belongs to the LATIN rather than Orthodox Patriarch by saying "oh but the Orthodox said liturgy there pre-Schism", as if the Schism was a matter of little importance and couldn't have possibly altered whether they still have right to it or not.
Now Forlorn I'll be rude. I am publicly pointing out that there is NO LATIN PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. OopsThere was until Vatican 2. And that's who the Patriarchal Basilica of St. Peter's belonged to, not the Orthodox "Patriarch". Another historical fact for you.
Pointing out a historical fact is not exactly the same thing as countering your point. Unless you were unaware that a Latin Patriarch of something not Latin is an anomaly. I quite clearly stated to Byzcat the orthodox have no right to the relic, you're just being rude and uncharitable accusing me of a position I do not hold. When subjects involving the Eastern Churches come up I try to give historical fact based data since in general Latin Catholics have no idea our churches exist and thus usually have a poor understanding of not only of the theological teaching of the different eastern Catholic churches let alone the orthodox equivalent or the historical background which involves a lot of politics as wellYou said earlier that the relics were not given away as they already belonged to the Orthodox, which you justified by saying St. Peter's Basilica is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Justifying the handing over of Catholic relics and falsely claiming they belonged to the Orthodox by blatantly lying about the nature of the Patriarchal Basilicas. St. Peter's was associated with the LATIN Patriarch of Constantinople, as your own quote clearly states, not the Orthodox schismatic "Patriarch". Even the Orthodox themselves quoted in the article admitted the relics never belonged to them, and yet you still falsely try to insist they did. That's what makes you look like a crypto-Orthodox, you're willing to argue more on their behalf than even they themselves are, and you happily lie to do so.
You do understand that the major churches in Rome belong to the Patriarchs right. The Popes church is the Lateran. St. Peters belongs to Constantinople, etc. You can't actually give away relics that already belong to someone else. For good or ill the mutual excommunication was lifted by Paul VI.You clearly stated that you believed the relics already belonged to the Orthodox in this post I've quoted above. I notice you didn't deny anything I actually claimed you said, rather you put words in my mouth to avoid having to defend your own claims.
I never said pre VII it is Not me who wrote the idiotic claim that Francis was abandoning the Papacy because he gave a few bone fragments away ( like other Popes have done)
Personal Message (Online)Reading comprehension again is not strong with you. Rights of use does not give rights of ownership and I never said it did. The point of my post is to show that the sky is fallen 'news' article is click bait. For the Pope and the Greek Orthodox have spent YEARS praying in front of the Body of Peter and suddenly the sky is falling. Obviously the prayer in front of the relics isn't problematic for them but giving away fragments of bone that's not being venerated and LifeSite News the Jeff Rense of news needs to get involved
Re: POPE Francis Mocks Saint Peter
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2019, 01:51:57 PM »
Quote
Thanks!0
No Thanks!0
Byzcat they always belonged to Rome, and this is unprecedented and wrong for the Relics of Peter unify Christendom around Rome, where Peter died.
Report to moderator 68.115.204.46
St. Peters belongs to Constantinople, etc. You can't actually give away relics that already belong to someone else.You did not say they had "right of use" over the relics. You said the relics belonged to them. You can't stop flip-flopping.
Saint Peter's with Constantinople (Latin Patriarch of Constantinople)
Byzcat they always belonged to Rome, and this is unprecedented and wrong for the Relics of Peter unify Christendom around Rome, where Peter died.
Byzcat they always belonged to Rome, and this is unprecedented and wrong for the Relics of Peter unify Christendom around Rome, where Peter died.
Please give an example of a pope (obviously pre-Vat II) who gave a sacred relic to any non-Catholic.Did you ever get an answer to this?
You must be really dense. The Latin Patriarchate ended in 64, from that time until Benedict changed it the church was still the Patriarchal Basilica of Constantinople. Since the Greek Orthodox used the church in the presence of the Apostle and the Pope they through actual access to the relic which was used for prayer by them BECAUSE IT WAS UNTIL THE CHANGE BY BENEDICT THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINOPLE. It logically follows that they have a right to the things that by tradition is part of their church. THIS DOES NOT MEAN NOR HAVE I SAID THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE OWNER WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF ROME.
A CHILD WHO HAS RIGHTS GIVEN TO HIM AND DRIVES A FAMILY CAR EVERY DAY FOR 2 YEARS AND IS THE ONLY DRIVER WHO USES IT AND HAS THE CAR IN HIS POSSESSION. IF THE FATHER HIM A SPARE TIRE FOR THE CAR. OR IF THE FATHER GIVES HIM THE TITLE OF THE CAR MOST WOULD SAY IN COMMON USAGE THAT THE FATHER GAVE HIM SOMETHING HE ALREADY HAD. I publicly stated long before your accusation that Rome has no right to give it away.
Yeah, but not to heretics.The same night? Are you a witch with second sight? Do we need to burn you at the stake?
But fear not.
The Destroyer Popes Francis and Benedict will die on the same night.
It will be glorious and it will be soon.
Oh, so than actual Eastern Catholic teaching is condemned by you.
Try reading the treaty of Brest which was pre VII and find agreement on purgatory cause there aint one.
Benedict was referred to by me XVI so obviously not 64 AD. The meandering was to try to explain to Forlorn that a Latin Patriarch was not original.
Also the Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion currently with Constantinople the only reason they were referenced was the reference to EO saying mass there.
There are two different things being discussed the right of access to pray before the relics saying liturgy there which they do. And.......giving away relics to a place they do not belong.
Your list of heresies is mostly a list of Thomistic Scholastic points that most orthodox theologians agree with and even part of discussions Most orthodox disagreement is either by uberdox and uneducated or over different. Praxis for example Copts object to deacons giving blessings and see it as a dealbreaker.
Relics don't make the papacy. Popes have given away relics for some time as gestures of goodwill.
You do understand that the major churches in Rome belong to the Patriarchs right. The Popes church is the Lateran. St. Peters belongs to Constantinople, etc. You can't actually give away relics that already belong to someone else. For good or ill the mutual excommunication was lifted by Paul VI.
I never said pre VII it is Not me who wrote the idiotic claim that Francis was abandoning the Papacy because he gave a few bone fragments away ( like other Popes have done)
Byzcat they always belonged to Rome, and this is unprecedented and wrong for the Relics of Peter unify Christendom around Rome, where Peter died.
But back to your schizophrenic post history...Well, since they contradict each other, I'd rather see him admit to which one he truly believes. Also, I think we are still waiting for him to give examples of pre-Vatican II popes that gave away relics.
Your first post was spent downplaying the significance of the relics:
Then you tried to say they were rightly returned because they already belonged to Patriarch Bartholomew:
Though when confronted by the obvious problems of these statements, you pull a 180:
Well as you know, Constantinople is nowhere near Rome. So now when anybody criticizes your past statements you refer back to this inexplicable change as though it was a natural part of your argument. It isn't, it's called talking from both sides of your mouth. Admit the first posts were wrong and move on. The attempt at gaslighting is becoming more and more interesting the further we go with this.
Apologies for the uncharitable remarks, I was wrong using them.
I never said the Greek Orthodox Patriarch owns anything. What 'teaching' of the EO have I been promoting. Just wondering since I am not EO and don't like them or their teachings. I am Catholic and believe all that the Catholic church has always believed and traditionally taught.
Also you may feel wonderful about likes or dislikes on some computer because of your shallowness but truth is never popular so who cares.
I have never promoted EO teaching, and I have particular antipathy twords the Russian Orthodox
As for the dislikes, I was referring to the jump in my own negative tally from this thread.I have seen this before. I think it is a system glitch of some sort, and I contacted Matthew about it at the time. I don't know if he's looked into it or not.
I have seen this before. I think it is a system glitch of some sort, and I contacted Matthew about it at the time. I don't know if he's looked into it or not.Hah, well I guess you never know! I have seen people go back in my post history just to downvote me into oblivion before so it wouldn't shock me.
Try reading the treaty of Brest which was pre VII and find agreement on purgatory cause there aint one.
5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.
Hah, well I guess you never know! I have seen people go back in my post history just to downvote me into oblivion before so it wouldn't shock me.It just happened to me again: 60+ downvotes in a matter of hours.
It just happened to me again: 60+ downvotes in a matter of hours.Open up your comment history on your profile and check the earliest few pages(i.e the first comments you made after joining). They're all heavily downvoted, even ones that should be completely uncontroversial. The same thing happened to me. Posts that were neutral or even upvoted back when I posted them are now riddled with downvotes. It seems there are a few loose bolts(or one person with multiple accounts, the more likely possibility) on this site who go around mass-downvoting users they get into arguments with, but they go to the oldest pages in the hopes it isn't noticed.
Open up your comment history on your profile and check the earliest few pages(i.e the first comments you made after joining). They're all heavily downvoted, even ones that should be completely uncontroversial. The same thing happened to me. Posts that were neutral or even upvoted back when I posted them are now riddled with downvotes. It seems there are a few loose bolts(or one person with multiple accounts, the more likely possibility) on this site who go around mass-downvoting users they get into arguments with, but they go to the oldest pages in the hopes it isn't noticed.
Yeah it's no glitch, just someone with an overdeveloped sense of online vengeance.And a lot of time on their hands. ::)
Let me post a link to an article by an orthodox scholar, (not endorsing his views) and an EO perspective and we can go from there, it's a lot of ground to cover and I am in some college summer classes right now. Don't go back to school when you're old it's such a time waster, but work is work
https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html?fbclid=IwAR1x9erM12F_1zRN3OZkI7wCDjlX-5KmcPZfWa9kY9u4QaDLTQEiAINx5E4
And a lot of time on their hands. ::)
So make that first item on my list, the Filioque, a major bone of contention then for all "Orthodox" as well as for Eastern Catholicssuch as the one you are citing. This subject requires a certain amount of precision and if you were implying that Eastern Catholic teaching is much different from the EO, your responses so far are simply not good enough to support that claim. Again, please look over that list and tell me which items are not Eastern Catholic teaching. Thank you.
The Filioque isn't included in the Eastern Catholic creed, notably. Does that mean the Church allows Eastern Catholics to not believe it?I think there are some Melkites who really think of themselves as "EOs in communion with Rome" who don't believe in it, but for the most part the vibe I get is that its not that we reject the filioque, we just don't recite it in Eastern churches because its never been part of our tradition to recite it that way, obviously the creed was completely acceptable for 500+ years without the filioque, but I've never heard anyone say the west is "wrong" for including it or that the creed isn't orthodox when its recited that way.