Pectoral Cross of Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter R_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So since we as Catholics believe that the Pope cannot err, we can correct (with 100% certainty) those who understand this as the Pope starting to make the Papacy in to a “first among equals” concept. Even if Pope Francis truly thinks and wants to do that, he shall fail miserably because the Holy Spirit will not allow it!!!
The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of doctrine and morals. Outside of that, popes can err. If you look at the history of the Church, we have had many popes who have erred greatly. Blessed Pope John Paul II went to confession daily to confess his sins. :eek: 😉
 
The Bishop of Rome, affectionately called Pope (Papa), could dwell in Jerusalem but can’t take over the See of Jerusalem. St Peter established his See in Rome and handed it to his successors. No matter where they may live, they are Bishop of Rome.
Are you suggesting the pope was Bishop of Rome even before he got to Rome, when he was back in Antioch?
 
Are you suggesting the pope was Bishop of Rome even before he got to Rome, when he was back in Antioch?
The office of Vicar of Christ belonged to the person of St Peter. St Peter chose Rome and gave Antioch to St Evodius. The See of Jerusalem belongs to St James the Just and his successors. The Bishop of Rome may live wherever but, he will not take the other Sees as his own. This goes against the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
 
Are you suggesting the pope was Bishop of Rome even before he got to Rome, when he was back in Antioch?
I think he’s just saying that once you become the Pope/Bishop of Rome, it doesn’t matter where you reside, you are still the Bishop of Rome…? Essentially.

Were the Popes during the Avignon Papacy still considered Bishop of Rome…I believe they were, but not sure.
 
Were the Popes during the Avignon Papacy still considered Bishop of Rome…I believe they were, but not sure.
Yes, the popes were still the bishop of Rome. Most patriarchs of Antioch are actually located in Damascus but, they are still the bishop of Antioch. 🙂
 
The office of Vicar of Christ belonged to the person of St Peter. St Peter chose Rome and gave Antioch to St Evodius. The See of Jerusalem belongs to St James the Just and his successors. The Bishop of Rome may live wherever but, he will not take the other Sees as his own. This goes against the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
At first it sounded like you were saying the See of Rome is inextricably linked with the pope. The pope was not always Bishop of Rome, and now or at some future point he could choose a different see, just as St. Peter did centuries ago.
 
At first it sounded like you were saying the See of Rome is inextricably linked with the pope. The pope was not always Bishop of Rome, and now or at some future point he could choose a different see, just as St. Peter did centuries ago.
St Peter the Apostle chose Rome. The bishop of Rome cannot not change this. He may choose to live in other places. He cannot take a different city to be the bishop therein. He will always be bishop of Rome. To change this violates the Ecumenical Councils.

The current bishops of Antioch do not live in Antioch but, they are still the bishop of Antioch. The five Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) cannot change. They were established by the Apostles and the Ecumenical Councils.

Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of the Syriac Orthodox Church - Damascus
Gregory III Laham of the Melkite Catholic Church - Damascus
Ignatius Joseph III Yonan of the Syrian Catholic Church - Beirut
Bechara Boutros Rahi of the Maronite Catholic Church - Bkerké, Lebanon
John X of Antioch of the Greek Antiochian Orthodox Church - Damascus
 
The bishop of Rome… cannot take a different city to be the bishop therein. He will always be bishop of Rome. To change this violates the Ecumenical Councils.
Exactly what canons would be violated by such a move?
 
Exactly what canons would be violated by such a move?
Canon VI First Ecumenical Council: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop…

Canon II Second Ecumenical Council: The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Canon XXVIII Fourth Ecumenical Council: Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
 
Hello. I found out whence the Pectoral Cross by accident. A Canadian Archbishop was wearing it the other day and I pointed out it was identical to Papa Francesco’s. He did not know that. Some friends had given it to him a few years back.

$35 in a Roman shop he thought.

Francis and Benedict complement each other in their teaching.
 
Was anyone intrigued by the pectoral cross of Pope Francis?

Some news sources revealed it is the same pectoral cross he has always worn as a bishop.

I was lucky enough to find a couple of close-zoom frames in a video about this morning’s visit to pay homage to Our Lady.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2066&pictureid=14779

The structure is very simple and sober. We see the Good Shepherd carrying on His shoulders the lost sheep. Behind him is the flock. On top, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.

On the very top is some heavenly figure, but I can’t quite tell who it may be.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2066&pictureid=14780
It is the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. 🙂

communio.stblogs.org/official%20portrait%20of%20Francis.jpg

22* p and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

usccb.org/bible/luke/3
 
Nope. It is just a simple bas relief design. Saw it on the Archbishop’s clasp. The Cross is simple, elegant, and - at 35 Euros- a bargain.
 
It seems clear from the first photo that it is indeed a dove.
The dove is at the top of the cross. However there is another piece that holds the cross to the chain. The OP was asking about the design on this small piece. The poster who has seen the cross in person (on the Canadian Archbishop) says that it is a simple design and not a figure (ie, not an angel, dove, Mary, etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top