Eastern Orthodoxy and Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and Infallibility

[sidbrown]

Perhaps you can cite the infallible Doctrine that approves of slavery?

I have already given you two citations. One from the Bible and another from the Council of Gangra.
According to Cardinal Avery Dulles: “For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.”

 

[jam070406]

I have already given you two citations. One from the Bible and another from the Council of Gangra.
According to Cardinal Avery Dulles: “For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.”

In other words, you can’t provide an infallible Doctrine on the issue you are trying to use to discredit Papal Infallibility. That is what you are trying to debunk right, Papal infallibility? What is you point in all of this??

 

[JohnVIII]

…Do you think that God woud allow “ERROR” to be BOUND in Heaven? This is the best argument for Infallibity that can be found…

OK, this is a good point!

Thanks!

…(I have to finish this train of thought)…

Matthew 18:15-20:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

The context of binding & loosing is tied in with the principle of ‘Two or Three Witnesses’. This principle is mentioned three times in the verses I quote above. So…

If ‘Infallibility’ is tied into ‘binding & loosing’ it must also be tied into the principle of ‘Two or Three Witnesses’. Hence, the pope should act with other bishop and not all by himself.

Additionally, after I did a little study on this, it appears that a more correct translation of the phase “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” would be…

“What you bind on earth will already have been bound in Heaven. What you loose on earth will already have been loosed in Heaven.”

So the picture that this paints to me is that the bishops (plural) of the Church seek to determine, with the use of plural witnesses so it can be as accurate as possible, what Christ has already bound in Heaven, and once this is determined they have the authority to ‘make it official’ by ‘binding it on earth’.

So, there is nothing in the verses that specifically say that Infallibility is used, and the apparent strong implication that Infallibility is used fades away upon a closer look at it.

I still think that, as important as I have come to believe the pope is to the Church, including the need to be in communion with Rome, I can’t see that he has a special gift to be infallible, either by himself, of in conjunction with other bishops; although acting in conjunction with other bishop does appear to make in more likely to be accurate in matters of faith.

 

[jam070406]

Matthew 18:15-20:

The context of binding & loosing is tied in with the principle of ‘Two or Three Witnesses’. This principle is mentioned three times in the verses I quote above. So…

If ‘Infallibility’ is tied into ‘binding & loosing’ it must also be tied into the principle of ‘Two or Three Witnesses’. Hence, the pope should act with other bishop and not all by himself.

Additionally, after I did a little study on this, it appears that a more correct translation of the phase “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” would be…

“What you bind on earth will already have been bound in Heaven. What you loose on earth will already have been loosed in Heaven.”

So the picture that this paints to me is that the bishops (plural) of the Church seek to determine, with the use of plural witnesses so it can be as accurate as possible, what Christ has already bound in Heaven, and once this is determined they have the authority to ‘make it official’ by ‘binding it on earth’.

So, there is nothing in the verses that specifically say that Infallibility is used, and the apparent strong implication that Infallibility is used fades away upon a closer look at it.

I still think that, as important as I have come to believe the pope is to the Church, including the need to be in communion with Rome, I can’t see that he has a special gift to be infallible, either by himself, of in conjunction with other bishops; although acting in conjunction with other bishop does appear to make in more likely to be accurate in matters of faith.

Then how can Priests forgive sins without two or three witnesses in the confessional?

 

[Hesychios]

Then how can Priests forgive sins without two or three witnesses in the confessional?

Wow, there’s a point.

 

[Hesychios]

I like a guy whose gonna think sometimes… So when Jesus gave the Authority To Bind and loose On Earth without involving Heaven, I’d agree that Infallibility might need to be needed to be looked at again. But when Jesus continues and says that the same is equally BOUND in HEAVEN…welll…now… We all know there ain’t no error in Heaven. Or do some here think so???

The problem here is that our faith is based upon paradox. We can’t escape it, but somehow we are always trying to resolve it.

Perhaps our notions of what infallibility actually means needs to be addressed.

 

[JohnVIII]

Then how can Priests forgive sins without two or three witnesses in the confessional?

I have always been told that confession originally was done before the whole church. It developed into a private confession later on.

Now that I’ve shared all my doubts. I wish to confess that I am wrong. The Church says that I need to believe in Infallibility, so I will believe in the Church and through my believe in the Church I will indirectly believe in Infallibility. So be it!

 

[sidbrown]

In other words, you can’t provide an infallible Doctrine on the issue you are trying to use to discredit Papal Infallibility. That is what you are trying to debunk right, Papal infallibility? What is you point in all of this??

It is a misleading question to ask: “Do you think that God woud allow “ERROR” to be BOUND in Heaven?” This is seen by the example of first the approval, and then later on the disapproval of slavery.

 

[jam070406]

It is a misleading question to ask: “Do you think that God woud allow “ERROR” to be BOUND in Heaven?” This is seen by the example of first the approval, and then later on the disapproval of slavery.

So then you’ll post the Doctrine that binds slavery in Heaven?

 

[DavidKays]

Good analyses. But scripture does show how others were rejected to be in The Apostles circle. MATTHEW 8:15-22; Luke 9:50-60…

I agree with you comletely that “Judas had free will and was his own person”… But Jesus cannot be said to have felt being forced or willed into accepting anyone to be Apostle. But like I said. It would make for common sense.

Father may I point out another theory about Judas. May by Judas went to the Pharisees not so actually betray Jesus outwardly but to give Jesus an opportunity to expose Himself. He was actually trying to force Jesus to do something. It is like in cards and you do not have a good hand so you try to bluff into winning. Jesus did not take this bluff and it blew right into Judas’ face. It went wrong. Judas’ bluff failed and now he is taking the consequences for it and seeing that Jesus is going to be killed makes him scared and he begins really to be frightened at the prospect the Jesus will be sentenced to death. Judas did not like the approach of Jesus ministry so he decided to force the issue on Jesus to expose Himself. Jesus did not fall into his bluff and this questioned Judas’ motives which led him eventually to his tragic death. Judas actually did not want the death of Jesus but tried to bluff Jesus in dealing with the Pharisees. Remember Peter too tried to stop Jesus and Jesus called Peter " Get behind me Satan! " Judas was a little like Peter but in this case was actually trying to force the issue on Jesus and noting that Jesus would not give in to his bluff began a sequence of events that eventually led to his death. He could not believe that Jesus was willing to die! God Bless!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

IN this vastly mad world, I wonder if we can bring the issue back to its razors edge:

Can the intiator of this thread who claims to be a priest ( Though I would like to believe our priests have done a bit more research in some of these areas) actually demonstrate in a historically and theologically consistent way from WITHIN THE ORTHODOX PARADIGM, their belief in these three issues:

1. The immacualte conception as defined by the Roman Catholic Church
2. Papal Infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council
3. THat which passes for the Latin view of the internediate state of the dead known as purgatory, i.e., a place of purifying fire that actually brings the soul of the sinner into a purified relationship with God?

The answer is No, but he is free to try again.

By all means.

P.S. The main problem with American slavery was not so much having a conquered people serve, as it was dehumanizing these people and treating them like scum of the earth…

American Slavery is the only kind of slavery in the History of the world where the OWNERS DENIED THE BASIC HUMANITY of those enslaved. I do not see any historical evidence of any other culture making such an assertion.

 

[Aramis]

American Slavery is the only kind of slavery in the History of the world where the OWNERS DENIED THE BASIC HUMANITY of those enslaved. I do not see any historical evidence of any other culture making such an assertion.

Viking slaves could be ordered burned with their masters at the funeral, and some funerals are documented by non-viking witnesses that this indeed was done.

Roman slaves were considered to be no better than cattle as far as rights; cattle that could talk. They could be freed, but few were. Indentures were not the same as born slaves nor captures.

American Slavery was unique in making it an almost purely ethnic issue. Not in dehumanizing the property.

 

[Bluegoat]

Viking slaves could be ordered burned with their masters at the funeral, and some funerals are documented by non-viking witnesses that this indeed was done.

Roman slaves were considered to be no better than cattle as far as rights; cattle that could talk. They could be freed, but few were. Indentures were not the same as born slaves nor captures.

American Slavery was unique in making it an almost purely ethnic issue. Not in dehumanizing the property.

While I agree that dehumanization isn’t the only issue, the things you mention are not necessarily evidence they they were dehumanized. Male Roman citizens also had the power of like and death over their children and wives, for example. The value set on lives in general was, I think, much less, which is a slightly different thing. And this was also true through much of the Christian period.

 

[TP2]

Father, then are all the apostles infallible? Christ gave them the same power to bind and loose?

Only if they are Teaching In Union With Peter. No Peter, No “other” Apostles. You can’t have a body without a “Cephalous” or “Head of” anything…
Not my opinions. Read the Eastern Fathers’ Letters…

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

The Apostles are not Apostles without Jesus. Likewise they are scattered without Peter but with a valid priesthood because Jesus Christ gave it to them.

Remember, Jesus gave the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM to Peter Alone. That made Peter the Head of The Household. That is scripturally evident. No doubt about it. Mt 16.

Who gives keys to their Mercedes to all their best friends? Common sense, folks… common sense.

 

[DavidKays]

Only if they are Teaching In Union With Peter. No Peter, No “other” Apostles. You can’t have a body without a “Cephalous” or “Head of” anything…
Not my opinions. Read the Eastern Fathers’ Letters…

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

The Apostles are not Apostles without Jesus. Likewise they are scattered without Peter but with a valid priesthood because Jesus Christ gave it to them.

Remember, Jesus gave the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM to Peter Alone. That made Peter the Head of The Household. That is scripturally evident. No doubt about it. Mt 16.

Who gives keys to their Mercedes to all their best friends? Common sense, folks… common sense.

Father may I suggest that by giving Peter these Keys that in fact Jesus is saying to Peter that you have the greatest responsibility. To those who receive much, much then is required. To those who receive less, less is required. It seems to me that Jesus is giving Peter a heavy and great responsibility to uphold His Church. This burden given to Peter must be exercised by the Popes who follow him. To Peter is given this necessary responsibilty to keep God’s Church intact. The Popes the successors of this responsibility must exercise it to the Glory of God and to the welfare of the Church. It must be the greatest burden in the whole world to hold the Office of St.Peter and yet it must demand an extraordinary man to fill the Shoes of the Fisherman. It gives me great hope to know that Peter’s successor is in Rome and that we should always be thankful to God for establishing the Papacy and giving St.Peter this great responsibilty and service. The Papacy is a great gift that we can uphold in thanksgiving. God Bless!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Whie I accept the papacy, I do not accept th way many Roman apologists try to defend it.

For example, the little truism: “A body with no head is dead, and a body with more than on e head is a moster.”

THis is excessively WRONG. First, the metaphor of a Body that Paul uses to describe the church is one where by MANY participate in the singular functions ANALAGOUS to different parts of the body.

SO those who journey are the feet, those who visit the imprisoned are the hands, those who pray in solitude are the heart, etc…

But when it comes to HEADSHIP all of a sudden the Roman apologist turns around and says “There can only be one supreme erthly head, the Pope, analagous to Christ the head.”

Well, what the heck have you just accepted up to this point?! An octopus?! How is that not a monstrosity?! How can you have many hands, many feet, many hearts, and only one head? This is some kind of Spiritual crustacean?

I think what needs to be made clear is that the Headship of Christ is shared by all the Bishops, with the Pope of Rome at the forefront. Instead of a downward pyramid, we should conceive of all the Bishops as a single unit guiding all the Faithful with the Pope sort of like the MC in a marching band.

Which is actually what the Catechism says. SO, just as thee is one Mystical body of Christ, we all participate in different aspects of that body in different ways. The same is true of ALL the bishops who participate as a single unit in the headshp of Christ, with our Holy Father leading the bandwagon.

And like I said before, for the Orthodox, even if we disagree about the divine institution of the Papacy, we should note that if the Whole body of the church recognizes the Pope as spokesman for the Church, it is from thence that his official actions derive their infallibility: The phronema of the Chuch has recognized her unversal hierarch, as a consequence, he cannot lead the whole church into error on a matter of faith or morals. Hence, he is infallible in his office, which is to be the oracle of the church, so to speak. As the whole church is the oracle of the Holy Spirit, so the Pope is the Oracle of the church, how about that?

“Who gives keys to their Mercedes to all their best friends? Common sense, folks… common sense.”

Uh, no. This is a lousy example that completely misses the point you are trying to make.

St. Augustine taught that Peter represents all the apostles as a whole, so that whaever christ spoke to Peter is implied to apply to the other apostles as well.

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). **So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”
(John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

 

[JohnVIII]

Whie I accept the papacy, I do not accept th way many Roman apologists try to defend it.

For example, the little truism: “A body with no head is dead, and a body with more than on e head is a moster.”

THis is excessively WRONG. First, the metaphor of a Body that Paul uses to describe the church is one where by MANY participate in the singular functions ANALAGOUS to different parts of the body.

SO those who journey are the feet, those who visit the imprisoned are the hands, those who pray in solitude are the heart, etc…

But when it comes to HEADSHIP all of a sudden the Roman apologist turns around and says “There can only be one supreme erthly head, the Pope, analagous to Christ the head.”

Well, what the heck have you just accepted up to this point?! An octopus?! How is that not a monstrosity?! How can you have many hands, many feet, many hearts, and only one head? This is some kind of Spiritual crustacean?

I think what needs to be made clear is that the Headship of Christ is shared by all the Bishops, with the Pope of Rome at the forefront. Instead of a downward pyramid, we should conceive of all the Bishops as a single unit guiding all the Faithful with the Pope sort of like the MC in a marching band.

Which is actually what the Catechism says. SO, just as thee is one Mystical body of Christ, we all participate in different aspects of that body in different ways. The same is true of ALL the bishops who participate as a single unit in the headshp of Christ, with our Holy Father leading the bandwagon.

And like I said before, for the Orthodox, even if we disagree about the divine institution of the Papacy, we should note that if the Whole body of the church recognizes the Pope as spokesman for the Church, it is from thence that his official actions derive their infallibility: The phronema of the Chuch has recognized her unversal hierarch, as a consequence, he cannot lead the whole church into error on a matter of faith or morals. Hence, he is infallible in his office, which is to be the oracle of the church, so to speak. As the whole church is the oracle of the Holy Spirit, so the Pope is the Oracle of the church, how about that?

“Who gives keys to their Mercedes to all their best friends? Common sense, folks… common sense.”

Uh, no. This is a lousy example that completely misses the point you are trying to make.

St. Augustine taught that Peter represents all the apostles as a whole, so that whaever christ spoke to Peter is implied to apply to the other apostles as well.

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). **So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter *the Church ***is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”
(John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

A very refreshing post!!!

 

[TP2]

Father may I suggest that by giving Peter these Keys that in fact Jesus is saying to Peter that you have the greatest responsibility. To those who receive much, much then is required. To those who receive less, less is required. It seems to me that Jesus is giving Peter a heavy and great responsibility to uphold His Church. This burden given to Peter must be exercised by the Popes who follow him. To Peter is given this necessary responsibilty to keep God’s Church intact. The Popes the successors of this responsibility must exercise it to the Glory of God and to the welfare of the Church. It must be the greatest burden in the whole world to hold the Office of St.Peter and yet it must demand an extraordinary man to fill the Shoes of the Fisherman. It gives me great hope to know that Peter’s successor is in Rome and that we should always be thankful to God for establishing the Papacy and giving St.Peter this great responsibilty and service. The Papacy is a great gift that we can uphold in thanksgiving. God Bless!

Your sweet in your simplicity of faith. Remember, Christ didn’t give Peter The Authority of His own Ministry because Peter deserved it or because Peter was holy or because Peter was better… None of the above. He gave it to Peter because He Chose to Give it to Peter. That’s all. Peter has a role in The Church just like John and Philip and Andrew and all the rest… No one was chosen to be Apostle because they were better or worse or smarter or even better at catching Fish. It was Jesus’ Call to make and He made it to show us how The Chain of Peter’s Successors, The Popes is as strong as It’s weakest link. If Peter could survive being The head of The Apostles, then anyone else following him could too, irregardless of their intellect or moral compass. The Choice of Pope is Christ’s to make. How he does it and who he chooses is up to Him, not us. And your right… To whom more is given. much more will be expected. To be sure!

 

[DavidKays]

Your sweet in your simplicity of faith. Remember, Christ didn’t give Peter The Authority of His own Ministry because Peter deserved it or because Peter was holy or because Peter was better… None of the above. He gave it to Peter because He Chose to Give it to Peter. That’s all. Peter has a role in The Church just like John and Philip and Andrew and all the rest… No one was chosen to be Apostle because they were better or worse or smarter or even better at catching Fish. It was Jesus’ Call to make and He made it to show us how The Chain of Peter’s Successors, The Popes is as strong as It’s weakest link. If Peter could survive being The head of The Apostles, then anyone else following him could too, irregardless of their intellect or moral compass. The Choice of Pope is Christ’s to make. How he does it and who he chooses is up to Him, not us. And your right… To whom more is given. much more will be expected. To be sure!

Thank you Father for your words. It has given me more to reflect on. God Bless!

 

[DavidKays]

By the way Father, if somehow Jesus or the Church ever elected me Pope, you will probably witness the worse scandals, countless heresies springing up and 3 to 4 Ecumenical Councils to deal with. Man they just can’t wait to replace me. My name may be wriiten down but only in the history books. Thank God for our Popes today for they are courageous and holy and people you can see and try to imitate. My favourite Pope is His Holiness John Paul II and I admire him very much. Incidently his chair is in my Orthodox Church. They made one for him for his 1st visit to Canada. We have it now because we asked for it when we saw it in the attic of the Basilca. I sit on it once and for awhile so I can get his blessing and then I tell my friends " Hey I sat on the Pope’s Chair ". So far we had 30 Roman Catholics come to my Church to see it. I told them we are not charging anybody yet to sit on it. Soon we will see His Holiness raised to the Altars and I put a prayer at the chair so that when someone sits on it they can pray to His Holiness for his blessing. God Bless!