Pope gives away Peter’s bones.
The Ecumenical Patriarch was first to announce on July 1 that Pope Francis gave the reliquary containing the bones of Peter, separated from the basilica’s confessio by St. Pope Paul VI, to Constantinople. According to the testimony of the delegation of the Patriarch, the donation seems to have been impromptu, unscripted, and perhaps insensitive to Roman Catholic sensibilities; The Bishop of Rome is said to have explained that “I” no longer use the apostolic palace, and “I” no longer use the pontifical chapel. Francis who at times seeks to empower local churches has perhaps acted rather autocratically. Under the terms of international heritage and patrimony law the transfer would likely be judged as an invalid transfer or destruction of universal patrimony by an improper authority. The relics of Peter since time immemorial belong to the spiritual patrimony of Rome and the Church universal, not to a given pope in any historical moment to dispose of as he wishes. In fact, the papal donation seems to evidence the problematic practise of the contemporary papacy that Orthodoxy critiques.
33 comments:
So the reliquary contained SOME of the relics of St. Peter, but SOME remain in the Vatican?
I'm thinking that perhaps St. Peter arranged things in order to tell us something.....
This act CERTAINLY tells us something about Francis.
When will Pope Francis reach out to us witches and give us some consecrated hosts?
It does seem like he would want to explain it more clearly. Those are not unimportant bones to our Church.
Comparing the Orthodox to witches...
Interesting.
LOL, PF is certainly an "I" specialist. Maybe the Italian government will ignore his diplomatic immunity and arrest him for violating the law!
Yes, you would think the relics of St Peter are best located with the Chair of St Peter, and the Cathedral that bears his name. I am curious for an answer to the first comment: was it all the bones, or some of the bones of St Peter?
PF's idiosyncratic gift of the relics to Constantinople is surely no worse than Paul VI's idiosyncratic appropriation of some tiny bone fragments for his own personal use. Indeed, it reminds one of Paul VI's symbolic gestures, like giving away the tiara gifted to him by the people of Milan (I know it was heavy and ugly, but that's not the point). Or giving his papal ring to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1966.
The remains of St Peter still reside beneath the altar of the basilica which bears his name. They will no doubt be removed when St Peter's shares the fate of Hagia Sophia and becomes a mosque.
If you give someone a gift, you have no right to complain what the recipient does with that gift.
I give my son a gift of $100. What right do I have to complain that he spends it on books rather than diamonds...?
The headline "Pope gives away Peter’s bones. July 3, 2019 James Hadley, OblSB" is misleading.
So is Fr. McDonald's "WOW! CLERICALISM" comment. (Surprising we didn't see BOMBSHELL tucked somewhere in there... Yawn...)
From the article: "These are nine fragments of Saint Peter’s bones, which, after important archaeological excavations, have been confirmed to be authentic. At the request of Pope Paul VI in 1968, these fragments have been separated from the rest of the relics and placed in a bronze reliquary with the inscription: “Of the bones found in the Vatican Basilica belonging to the holy Apostle Peter”.
That this article appeared at Praytell is the wow and bombshell, no?
I had read the story in question. Some Pope Francis-hating "traditional" Catholic blogger/twitter sites did their usual thing...Pope Francis just sold out the Church (to Eastern Orthodox "heretics")...he hates God...the story is proof that he hates the Church...same old nonsense.
But the story died immediately upon broadcast.
Even Rorate Caeli, as far as I can tell, all but ignored the story in question.
By the way, even some right-wing commenters who hate Pope Francis, stated that the story, as well as the headlines on right-wing sites (Pope Away St. Peter's Bones), are misleading.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
It's much ado about nothing, although I am an Orthodox Christian myself, we share in veneration of the Apostles' Including St Peter (who was in Antioch first anyway :p). Pope Francis for all of his many faults, actually did something commendable here. (Little known fact that when the Church wasnt separated by 99% politics, the Basilica of St Peter was actually used by the Archbishop of Constantinople when he was in Rome, but alas :p)
Also, many of the relics brought to western Europe by crusaders like St Louis were strictly speaking the property of the Byzantine Church. Some have indeed been returned.
The TRIGREGNO (not "tiara"...please!) of St. Paul VI is neither heavy nor ugly.
I've stood in front of it in its present home in Washington, D.C. and it is clearly of a slightly smaller and leaner stature than many of the other Papal triregni that are extant.
It is in a style that is an example of the PROPER meaning of "noble simplicity". References to it as the "nuclear warhead", "the bullet", and other such descriptions I've heard, are attempts to lump it in with the whole mid-century modern scene, but quite unfair, since one can easily see, through many historical images, that it resembles examples worn by many popes over the centuries.
Gaudete in Domino Semper!
It is not the apocalypse. But it is not nothing.
Pray, consider how this is disturbing to the Orthodox, as the only real benefit is as a kindness to the same.
Richard, John Nolan has TOLD us that Paul's triregnum was ugly. Because John's opinions are, as he will tell you, unassailable, and because his personal tastes are superior to anyone else's, and because his idiosyncratic preferences are of greater value than those of other people, we must conclude that the triregnum is, in fact, ugly.
Now, lest you fall into his disfavor with further transgressions, be aware that John Nolan's unquestionable opinions on what is good, what is beautiful, what is "worthy," include not only papal regalia, but music, literature, fabrics used for vesture, altar design, roofing materials, diamond jewelry, art (all forms), brick patterns for your patio, and which route to take driving from Cornwall to Edinburg.
You have been warned...
Anonymous, there is such a thing as critical judgement, although perhaps not in your relativist universe.
Mr Sawicki is entitled to his opinion on the aesthetic merits of Paul VI's tiara (that is the correct term, by the way - the triregnum or triple crown dates only from the 14th century, and Paul VI's tiara hardly qualifies as such).
Had Mr Sawicki tried it on, he would have discovered it is very heavy, heavier even than the St Edward crown with which British monarchs are crowned, and which Edward VII wouldn't use at his coronation on account of its weight.
Anonymous, did anyone ever tell you that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? And you might at least have spelt the Scottish capital correctly; it's Edinburgh.
It's a source of wonder that a simple comment from me can be the occasion of a tirade from someone who clearly suffers from an inferiority complex. I could suggest therapy, but in your case the psychoanalist would put your mind at rest by assuring you that it's not a complex - you ARE inferior.
John, John, John, no one doubts that there is such a thing as critical judgment. However, when one begins to believe that his critical judgments are superior to all others, a, then, things get a little murky, no?
Paul VI's Milanese headgear qualifies entirely as a triregnum, as it contains the three royal diadems necessary for such a designation.
And, John, your "simple comment" was hardly the cause of my response. Your toplofty attitude, expressed with disturbing regularity, all feed into my sarcasm. And let me suggest that your supercilious "...you ARE inferior" proves my point. (It also makes you sound like Anne Robinson.)
Anonymous
Here we go again. When did I even suggest that my opinions or judgements were unassailable? That is an unwarranted inference on your part (it's about the only thing you're good at). Why do you have a visceral hatred for those cleverer and better informed than you are? Why do you persistently refuse to identify yourself?
And anticipating your non-response, I'll add a rider. Why can't you answer a simple question?
Why do I persistently refuse to identify myself? Why should I? Because you want me to do so?I don't identify myself because I choose not to do so.
You are very consistent in dismissing or putting down the opinions of those who disagree with you. My inference is hardly unwarranted. When someone suggests that your opinions are just that, and that your opinions aren't the last word on anything, you respond by saying that the person must be in need of a psychoanalyst, that he or she is uninformed, not as clever as you, that he or she is a relativist. And . . . wait for it . . . you say he or she is inferior to you.
The thing is, John, I came to the conclusion a while back that you actually believe you are superior. For some reason we can only guess at, you need to believe this. You are, of course, free to believe what you like, but as the wise old Irish saying goes, "Every eye forms its own fancy."
Anonymous is a pompous buffoon, suffering from the very defects he accuses others of having.
In case no one noticed.
Anonymous K,
Yet, we know who you are. The snark is unmistakabley you. In terms of John Nolan, never said he was superior, but given your inability to rebut his statements, I assume he is superior to you intellectually. John is about substance, you are about feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-lins.
Anonymous K,
Off topic but bad news for you and your ilk:
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/07/08/govt-dependency-plunges-under-trump-why-arent-we-celebrating/
TJM and others,
I am finding Anonymous's obsession with me somewhat disturbing. Recently he thrice reiterated my Christian name, although he is careful not to divulge anything about himself. He imputes to me attitudes and even emotions which I do not have. He makes connections and inferences which are inaccurate to the point of parody.
A recent brief comment of mine, which was an aside and not germane to the main argument, triggered a ridiculous tirade of sarcasm which included jewellery and patio design, subjects concerning which I have little knowledge and less interest.
In the pre-internet era he would be one of those who sent anonymous poison-pen letters, usually written in green ink.
I have recently debated with Anonymous 2 (who uses a nom de plume but is not reticent about explaining his background). We disagree on certain things, but I appreciate his insights, and he mine. Anonymous-the-troll has no conception of what constitutes intelligent debate.
I don't have anything to do with social media, but prefer to blog under my own name. My opinions are my own, but they are based on evidence and experience. If anyone disagrees with me, he is free to do so, but it is incumbent on him to give valid reasons. If he is unwilling or unable to do so, it would be better if he held his peace.
No doubt A-the-T will pop up in a futile attempt to have the last word. He's welcome, since it only serves to highlight his own defects.
John, you have commented to and about me every bit as much as I have to and about you. So don't go "inferring" that I am obsessed with you unless you own your own obsessions.
You opinions remain just that, opinions, no matter how much evidence or experience you have. Hearing Bach or Handel or Chopin thousands of times, or reading Chaucer thousands of times, or visiting the Wallace Collecton thousands of times doesn't make their works better than those of other artists, or your opinion any more valid than the opinions of others about music, literature, or arts.
Keep living in your fantasy world of superiority. It's not the real world, but it seems to make you happy.
Anonymous knows that the best work of music is "Feelings."
Anonymous K,
Well Johh Nolan's opinions display erudition and thought, yours do not. You are beyond tedious, like your fellow traveler, MT.
Anonymous's second paragraph is interesting in that it does display a certain cultural relativism, as in 'Mozart is great only because you think he is great'. This does not square with an earlier comment that 'no-one doubts that there is such a thing as critical judgement.'
His problem is that he confuses an opinion based on evidence and experience with one based on repetition, which is absurd. No-one has ever suggested that the criterion for artistic judgement is frequent exposure; were it so, then elevator muzak would trump Mozart, and Marty Haugen would trump Palestrina.
It takes no more than thirty seconds of listening to work out that Chopin and Schumann are infinitely better than Herz and Hünten, very popular in their day but now deservedly forgotten.
I will no longer address Anonymous directly, and would ask him to repay the compliment. In which case he might be persuaded to address substantive arguments (whether mine or others') and put forward arguments of his own, based on his own evidence and experience.
I shall, however, criticize his opinions should I deem it necessary.
John, there you go again, asserting that an opinion, yours of course, is an indisputable fact. Although you now like to call opinion "critical judgment," we know that a rose by any other name... The superiority of one composer or painter or author or architect over another remains a matter of personal taste or preference.
If you prefer Mozart to Mantovani, well, enjoy. But you needn't pretend that your preference is superior to others', or that your faculties of critical judgment are more finely tined than those who do not share your preferences.
As for not addressing you... "Deem" on, John .
'The superiority of one composer or painter or author or architect over another remains a matter of personal taste or preference'.
This is an extreme form of cultural relativism. Yet when accused of it, Anonymous denies it, saying that 'no-one doubts there is such a thing as critical judgement.'
Well, he obviously doubts this himself.
He may presume to address me personally and by name and I might reciprocate were he not so cowardly as to deliberately conceal his identity. So I shall refer to him in the third person, which in no way detracts from the fact that I hold him and his ilk in the utmost contempt, an opinion shared by most people on this blog.
John Nolan,
Hear, Hear. So sad he is a priest!
TJM
I can't prove he's a priest, and since he will neither confirm nor deny it, the options are to ignore him completely or to treat him as just another member of the green ink brigade.
Post a Comment