Vatican City, Jul 3, 2019 / 10:50 am (CNA).- Pope Francis gave unexpectedly a reliquary containing what are believed to be bone fragments of St. Peter to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, an ecumenical gesture that has generated controversy among some Catholics.
The pope took the reliquary from the chapel in the papal apartments, where Pope Saint Paul VI had placed the bronze reliquary containing eight bone fragments after they were discovered in a 1952 dig under St. Peter’s Basilica.
A delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople were guests at the June 29 Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, as has been customary in recent years.
After the Mass, Pope Francis brought Eastern Orthodox Archbishop Job to a chapel in the papal apartments and offered the chapel’s reliquary as a gift, according to Vatican News. The bronze box bears the inscription, “From the bones found in the hypogeum of the Vatican Basilica, which are believed to be of Blessed Peter the Apostle.”
Pope Francis had previously brought the bronze reliquary containing the purported bone fragments for public veneration in St. Peter’s Square on Nov. 24, 2013 at a Mass for the feast of Christ the King, where Eastern patriarchs were also present.
At the time of the public veneration in 2013, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said, “There is a serious possibility these are St. Peter’s bones, but we do not go beyond that.”
The bone fragments were discovered in an excavation of tombs under St. Peter’s Basilica near Greek graffiti dating back to the year 160 that read, “Peter is here.” Analysis of the bones found that they belong to a man around 60 to 70 years old, and that had been wrapped in a purple cloth woven with gold.
On June 26, 1968 Paul VI said that the bones had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing … we have reason to believe that the few but sacrosanct mortal remains of the Prince of the Apostles have been traced.”
The Orthodox delegation brought the reliquary to Istanbul, where Monsignor Andrea Palmieri, undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, personally gave it to Patriarch Bartholomew.
Bartholomew, as Patriarch of Constantinople, is regarded as “first among equals” within the Orthodox communion, and is at least seen by many as the worldwide leader of Orthodoxy.
Orthodox Archbishop Job called the gesture “another gigantic step towards concrete unity.” However the move has generated controversy among Catholics.
Pope Francis said in his meeting with the ecumenical delegation June 28: “The feast of Saints Peter and Paul, which falls on the same day in the liturgical calendars of East and West, invites us to renew the charity that generates unity.”
“I am increasingly convinced that the restoration of full unity between Catholics and Orthodox will come about through respect for specific identities and a harmonious coexistence in legitimate forms of diversity. The Holy Spirit, for that matter, is the one who creatively awakens a multiplicity of gifts, harmonizes them and brings them into authentic unity,” the pope told the Orthodox leaders.
“I consider it valuable in our encounters to share our roots, to rediscover the goodness that the Lord has sown and made grow in each of us, and to share it, learning from one another and helping each other not to fear dialogue and concrete collaboration,” Pope Francis said.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope Francis meets with John Kerry, U.S. President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, on June 19, 2023, in what was Kerry’s fourth official private meeting with the pope. / Credit: Vatican Media
Rome Newsroom, Jun 19, 2023 / 07:45 am (CNA).
Pope Franci… […]
Pope Francis presides over the funeral Mass for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in St. Peter’s Square on Jan. 5, 2023. / Vatican Media
Rome Newsroom, Jan 15, 2023 / 11:00 am (CNA).
It was widely anticipated that a major reform of the Diocese of Rome was coming, as Pope Francis has been thinking about it for some time.
But no one expected it to come when it did: On Jan. 6, one day after the funeral of Francis’ predecessor as Bishop of Rome, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
With the reform, Pope Francis firmly took over the reins of the vicariate, or hierarchy, of the diocese. Everything is centralized, and everything must pass, at least formally, under the control of the pontiff.
Cardinal Angelo de Donatis, the pope’s vicar for the diocese, sees his role deeply diminished. The diocese’s auxiliary bishops strengthen their direct link with the pope. In the end, the pope has made it clear that he is the one who also formally presides over the Episcopal Council, a new body established as an “expression of synodality.”
The backstory
Before going into some details of the new decree, however, some background is necessary.
The last reform of the structure of the Vicariate of Rome was outlined by John Paul II in 1908, with the apostolic constitution Ecclesia In Urbe. For the new reform, Pope Francis copied and pasted several passages from that document. In some cases, these have been minimally rewritten to emphasize some details instead of others. In other cases, greater changes were made but these do little to alter the basic substance of things.
The reform presents two general characteristics of Pope Francis’ way of legislating: using councils or commissions and requiring those bodies to report directly to him.
It is clear that the pope is the bishop of Rome and that the pope’s vicar for the diocese is his auxiliary. Pope Francis, however, in this case, goes further, including with the constitution a decree that directly defines the areas of competence of the auxiliary bishops.
Pope Francis shows, in this way, a willingness to exercise greater personal control over everything that happens in the vicariate. At the same time, this choice also testifies to a “break” in the relationship of trust with his vicar, Cardinal de Donatsi.
Although Francis called de Donatis to preach retreats to the Roman Curia in 2014, he was never the pope’s candidate to succeed Cardinal Vallini as vicar. That was Cardinal Paolo Lojudice.
Pope Francis, however, wanted to first consult the parish priests of Rome, 80% of whom preferred de Donatis. It was impossible, therefore, for the pope not to listen to them. He appointed De Donatis vicar (and cardinal) and made Lojudice archbishop of the prestigious Diocese of Siena, and a cardinal, as well.
Last May, at the general assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference, it seemed clear that Pope Francis preferred the appointment of Cardinal Lojudice as the new president of the CEI.
The plan was to appoint Lojudice vicar of the Diocese of Rome to succeed Cardinal de Donatis, who had finished his five-year term, which would then have made Lojudice the primary contact person for the pope both in Rome and among the Italian bishops. De Donatis would have been appointed the new Penitentiary in place of Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, who has now turned 78.
The Italian bishops, however, preferred Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna, who was not unwelcome to Pope Francis.
Lojudice didn’t become vicar for the Rome Diocese, either, as everyone assumed would happen. Meanwhile, the relationship of trust between de Donatis and the pope seemed to have been interrupted in 2020, when, at the beginning of the lockdown for COVID-19, de Donatis decided to close the churches of Rome. When Pope Francis later highlighted the inadvisability of closing churches, de Donatis withdrew the decree but announced that every decision had been made in agreement with the pope. There also have been other moments of friction in recent years.
The pope, however, now seems intent on changing the vicar this year when de Donatis’ mandate expires. An indication of this is the fact that in the decree in which the Pope defines the area and pastoral competencies of the auxiliary bishops, de Donatis is not mentioned as vicar. One might take his presence for granted, of course, but the general interpretation is that the change will be made.
What’s new
What are the novelties introduced by Pope Francis? First, the figure of the prelate general secretary disappears, while the vicegerente (or the deputy of the vicar) manages the offices of the General Secretariat. The prelate secretary also had the function of the moderator of the Curia. In this case, everything is entrusted to the vicegerente, who thus sees his functions and weight increase.
The pope chose the vicegerente from among the auxiliary bishops, and in this case, Baldassare Reina was selected. Bishop Reina does not come from the Diocese of Rome but was called from Agrigento. The pope’s logic is to break possible power chains by bringing in fresh and foreign forces.
The choice of a new parish priest is entrusted to a lengthy procedure which must then, in any case, be submitted to the pope, who acts as the true and proper bishop of Rome without relying on the vicar, who is left with the appointment of assistant parish priests.
Article 20 of the Constitution requests a report for each candidate for the priesthood or diaconate to be submitted before ordination. Also, in this case, the candidates must be presented by the cardinal vicar to the pope, and only after obtaining the Episcopal Council’s consent. Therefore, the vicar seems to be practically a commissariat: He does not choose the candidates but submits them to the pope and can submit them only after the Episcopal Council has endorsed the choice.
The council is defined as the “first organ of Synodality” and must meet “at least three times a month,” presided over by the pope. Only in the absence of the pope can the cardinal vicar preside over the council, which is made up of the vicegerent and the auxiliary bishops. However, the pope wants to receive “the agenda for each meeting as soon as possible.”
Finally, there is also the establishment of an Independent Supervisory Commission. This will have a regulation that must be “approved by the Pope” and six members appointed by the pope who can remain in office for a maximum of two five-year terms.
The service for the protection of minors and vulnerable people is also added, which “reports to the Episcopal Council, through the auxiliary bishop appointed by me,” the pope has decreed.
The effects of the reform
The constitution also redistributes the areas and offices of the Vicariate’s Curia, and the accompanying decree gives each auxiliary bishop a specific task.
Beyond the reorganization, it should be noted how the pope enters into action as the actual bishop of Rome. Everything must pass through the decisions of the pope, while before, the cardinal vicar enjoyed trust and discretion. For the first time, however, the pope’s vicar is defined as an “auxiliary.” He is, therefore, an auxiliary among the auxiliaries, with a considerable reduction in his weight.
With this centralization, Pope Francis probably wants to overcome the risk of having “abuses” within the Vicariate.
It is worth remembering that in June 2021, Pope Francis ordered an inspection of the Vicariate itself. It was an audit entrusted to the Auditor General of the Holy See, Alessandro Cassinis Righini. It was the first time the Vicariate sifted through the accounting books, registers, and cooperative societies.
However, the Pope, as a matter of practice, has sent an inspection to all the dicasteries of the Curia every time there is a reform or a new mandate. The review, therefore, already predicted the change of pace in the Vicariate, one that has led Pope Francis to be increasingly alone in command.
Pope Francis at his general audience in St Peter’s Square on May 31, 2023. / Adi Zace/EWTN
Rome Newsroom, Jun 8, 2023 / 05:25 am (CNA).
One day after Pope Francis’ abdominal surgery for an incisional hernia, medical staff report that the pope i… […]
4 Comments
I ask this question with utter seriousness: is it the Pope’s to give away such relics and these relics in particular? Could he also conceivably give away any painting or sculpture? Do they belong to the papacy, Bergoglio or the Catholic Church? Could he conceivably (in a state of derangement?) transfer the Blessed Sacrament to Constantinople in a gesture towards unity?
I ask based on this scene in the article by Diana Montagna/Life Site News:
” ‘When we entered the chapel,’ the Orthodox archbishop said, ‘Pope Francis explained to me that Pope Paul VI wanted to keep a part of the relics of St. Peter from the Vatican Basilica in his private chapel.'”
“The Pope told him:’I no longer live in the Apostolic Palace, I never use this chapel, I never [celebrate] Holy Mass here, and we have St. Peter’s relics in the basilica itself, so it will be better if they will be kept in Constantinople.”
“ ‘This is my gift to the Church of Constantinople,” the Pope added, as he handed over the relics.’Please take this reliquary and give it to my brother Patriarch Bartholomew.’ ”
So in other words based on his own living arrangements, where he celebrates Mass, his own rationale and who is “brother” is (friend?)…and he does so despite all the politics in the Orthodox world, Russian Church etc…and those poor Uniates…he gives these relics of the Church as his? gift to be taken to a country dominated by Islam?
Again I ask a naïve question…but is Bergoglio as Pope able to simply decide to give away these relics as “my (his) gift?
The monstrous ego of this man is apparent yet again, in a completely destructive and contemptuous act. He positively hates the Church, which he believes he has inherited as his own personal property. Not only can he give away Her material possessions, but Her moral and spiritual treasures are his to dispose of as well. He hands over moral teaching and authority without a thought. If the end of the world is delayed long enough, a future pope will pronounce anathema on Bergoglio, there is no doubt about it.
Totally agree with the previous posters. Popes who have done this kind of thing – as Paul VI & JP2 also did – are acting in a passive-aggressive way, that shows that as far as they are concerned the CC is garbage now, and always was garbage. They may not intend that message, but that is what is conveyed.
This latest incident does not stand alone. It is part of a pattern. The “trainwreck” is the continual substitution of personal ego by successive Popes, in place of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Popes are not free to jettison it – they are subject to it, and are supposed to guard it inviolate, and to interpret it faithfully. They are not above it, but are subject to it. The egotism of the Popes since Paul VI is, from one POV, an example of what can happen when an Ultramontane Papacy becomes a law unto itself.
IMO, these men will in due time be as denounced as antipopes – though some of their acts could be accepted as Catholic. It is less of a problem to say there has been a lengthy vacancy in the Papacy, than to accept unCatholic novelties and false teaching as orthodox Catholicism.
I ask this question with utter seriousness: is it the Pope’s to give away such relics and these relics in particular? Could he also conceivably give away any painting or sculpture? Do they belong to the papacy, Bergoglio or the Catholic Church? Could he conceivably (in a state of derangement?) transfer the Blessed Sacrament to Constantinople in a gesture towards unity?
I ask based on this scene in the article by Diana Montagna/Life Site News:
” ‘When we entered the chapel,’ the Orthodox archbishop said, ‘Pope Francis explained to me that Pope Paul VI wanted to keep a part of the relics of St. Peter from the Vatican Basilica in his private chapel.'”
“The Pope told him:’I no longer live in the Apostolic Palace, I never use this chapel, I never [celebrate] Holy Mass here, and we have St. Peter’s relics in the basilica itself, so it will be better if they will be kept in Constantinople.”
“ ‘This is my gift to the Church of Constantinople,” the Pope added, as he handed over the relics.’Please take this reliquary and give it to my brother Patriarch Bartholomew.’ ”
So in other words based on his own living arrangements, where he celebrates Mass, his own rationale and who is “brother” is (friend?)…and he does so despite all the politics in the Orthodox world, Russian Church etc…and those poor Uniates…he gives these relics of the Church as his? gift to be taken to a country dominated by Islam?
Again I ask a naïve question…but is Bergoglio as Pope able to simply decide to give away these relics as “my (his) gift?
Bergoglio: “I…I…I..I…my…my…”
The monstrous ego of this man is apparent yet again, in a completely destructive and contemptuous act. He positively hates the Church, which he believes he has inherited as his own personal property. Not only can he give away Her material possessions, but Her moral and spiritual treasures are his to dispose of as well. He hands over moral teaching and authority without a thought. If the end of the world is delayed long enough, a future pope will pronounce anathema on Bergoglio, there is no doubt about it.
So tired of Francis and his continued betrayal of the Church and the Faith.
Please God, let this trainwreck of a Pontificate come to an end.
Totally agree with the previous posters. Popes who have done this kind of thing – as Paul VI & JP2 also did – are acting in a passive-aggressive way, that shows that as far as they are concerned the CC is garbage now, and always was garbage. They may not intend that message, but that is what is conveyed.
This latest incident does not stand alone. It is part of a pattern. The “trainwreck” is the continual substitution of personal ego by successive Popes, in place of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Popes are not free to jettison it – they are subject to it, and are supposed to guard it inviolate, and to interpret it faithfully. They are not above it, but are subject to it. The egotism of the Popes since Paul VI is, from one POV, an example of what can happen when an Ultramontane Papacy becomes a law unto itself.
IMO, these men will in due time be as denounced as antipopes – though some of their acts could be accepted as Catholic. It is less of a problem to say there has been a lengthy vacancy in the Papacy, than to accept unCatholic novelties and false teaching as orthodox Catholicism.