Thanks so much for packing a huge period of ecclesiastical change into such a small space. History does matter. Especially for those who are ignorant of the complications and blunder into offending those who remember old historic wrongs, real or exaggerated.
Excellent read. Here are my two cents on the matter: tradition links the title 'patriarch' in the early church to the sees established by St. Peter: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, a disciple of St. Peter, so it was considered as being founded by St. Peter himself. Pope St. Gregory the Great attested to this.
Jerusalem and Constantinople (one might also add Cyprus, which was declared an autonomous ecclesiastical territory by the third council in 431 AD) were known only as archbishoprics.
Constantinople, due to its status as the 'Nouvelle Rome,' began to claim the title in the 5th century, and Jerusalem, on account of its significance as the Holy Land, also started to make this claim. Now, considering that the title was acknowledged for the See of Alexandria, despite not being directly founded by St. Peter, the title might be bestowed on other sees derived from the Petrine Throne – i.e. just as the See of Alexandria was founded by a mandate from the Petrine Office in Rome, and See of Constantinople claimed that title on account of being a ‘new Rome’, the title could be conferred upon archbishops through a mandate from the Petrine Office.
In other words, a distinction should be made between autonomous ecclesiastical territories (e.g., the See of Cyprus, which never claimed the title) and non-autonomous ecclesiastical territories, which by virtue of their institution or privilege granted by the Petrine Office, can legitimately claim the title.
People tend to confuse autonomy and the title of patriarch, but the two are indeed distinct.
Antioch claims Peter as it's first bishop, not Alexandria, hence a patriarchal title for Antioch. Alexandria claims Mark, a disciple of Peter, as its first bishop, hence a patriarchal title. While Mark was not an Apostle he was one of the "70" and close in establishing a major Church.
The Old Rite contained a "Feast of the Chair of Peter at Antioch." Also, there was a "Feast of the Chair of Peter in Rome."
The former, for whatever reason, was suppressed in the Calendar of the NO. This was a thoughtless omission since it recognized that Antioch had an Apostolic foundation.
Similarly, the Holy Roman Church does not deny that the See of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and that he instituted St. Evodius as the city bishop. Pope St. John XXIII in 1960 (before Vatican II) combined the memorials of St. Peter's Chair in Rome (January 19) and St. Peter's Chair in Antioch (February 22). The Roman Calendar of 1970 went a step further and combined the memorials of St. Peter's Chair, St. Peter's Chains (August 01), with his feast (June 29), which is a holy day of obligation in most of Christendom.
The simplification of the Roman Calendar does not mean, in any way, that the church stopped recognizing the apostolic origins of the See of Antioch. However, it should be noted that neither Antioch nor Alexandria stands on par with the See of Rome.
Yes, the papacy of the Roman See has "developed" into what it is today.
While Rome has always held a "primacy" how this was exercised in the first millennia was quite different that it is exercised today.
The Roman primacy was based on three things; It was the second and last See founded by Peter, it is where he suffered martyrdom and the later was the seat of the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry, friend, but Alexandria was founded by John Mark, while a disciple of Peter the Protrepitikos of St Clement of Alexandria states Mark was the founder of the See of Alexandria. This document of the Church of Alexandria simply mentions Mark was a disciple of Peter.
This Church has always been called the "See of St. Mark." The ancient Anaphoras of Alexandrian Church mention Mark, not Peter leading the list of saints after the Virgin. The Coptic Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox call Mark the founder of the See they all claim.
As to a conflating of the "Chair of Peter at Antioch" and the "Chair of Peter at Rome" the Martyrology makes no mention of this.
Antioch is Antioch, Rome is Rome.
The orations in the NO Missal for the Feast of the Chair of Peter mention noting about a "chair" but only elucidate that the Lord found the Church on the rock of Peter's faith.
Despite what I might wrongly take as a theme in your writing above Peter was not and did not need to be the founder of most of the Apostolic Churches.
Thanks for this great article, I have always wondered about this very topic.
It is much more complex than I had imagined!
Its interesting / curious to note that, although the Church now refers to Western Christianity as "Roman Catholicism" instead of "Latin Catholicism" - for various underhand reasons - it still refers to "Latin Patriarchs".
Interesting to note also that Rome prefers to avoid potentially offending the Orthodox, than granting the wishes of Ukrainian Greek-Catholics to have their own Patriarch. This kind of respect is never returned sadly, and imo it shows how the Church authorities have their priorities mixed up. We saw this again just the other day, with Francis hurting his Ukrainian flock with his glowing praise for Russia.
The distinction between the ancient Patriarchates and the newer, honourific ones is interesting. I had heard of the Patriarch of Venice, but not of Lisbon.
The spurious Latin "suppositions" of patriarchal titles for the Archbishops for Jerusalem, Goa, Lisbon, Venice and the two Indies are a sham. These have no place in the eccleaiology of the Latin Church. But then popes can do whatever they want. These titles were generally "honorifics" given for political reasons and demonstrations of "power" of the bishop of Rome. The so called "Latin Patriarch" should especially be suppressed since it was a slap in the face left over from the Crusader Kingdoms. The "office" was to be used against the legitimate Eastern Patriarchs who hold that title and authority.
History well proves that there was a pentachy, declared by first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.
The other 14 Councils held in the West are General Councils of only the Western Churches. The Easterners were not validly represented at these Western Councils. Hence they are not truly "Ecumenical" Councils that included the Eastern part of the Church. The separation of the Churches assured this.
Florence-Ferrera was attended by Eastern bishops but only for the need of the West to help stem the Islamic hordes invading traditional Christian lands. A help that was promised but a help that never really came.
The Eastern Emperor forced Eastern bishops to assent to inassentable articles of belief foreign to the Tradition and ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches. With the exception of St. Mark of Ephesus, the other Eastern bishops, under pressure gave assent to these Latin teachings.
When these bishops returned home and news spread of their apostasy some bishops were exiled by their people, some simply ignored and others pelted with rotten food and rocks.
In the East "reception" by the people is part of acceptance of a new or "clarified" teaching.
Why Benedict "dropped" the title of "Patriarch of the West (or of Rome) is incomprehensible. The title demonstrated the place of primacy that the bishop of Rome holds among the other Apostolic Patriarchs. It doesn't seem, given B16's overtures to the Orthodox to fit in with his agenda. Nor does it seem like a "power grab" to accentuate Roman authority over the other Apostolic Patriarchs. None of this fits into B16's gentle and conciliatory way.
As for Patriarch Sviatoslav it is sad that he only bears this title among most Ukrainian Catholics. The political games played by Rome (such as the "Chinese-Vatican" policy) are of little help to the faithful.
Given the heresiarch (of nationalism over the Gospel) Kyrill the Acolyte of
Moscow's behavior and that of most of the ROC now could be a good time to officially give the title to Sviatoslav.
Will it anger the Russians and others in league with them? Yes. But in past history when has Rome really cared what the Orthodox think or do (other than try to absorb these Churches)?
Francis' overtures to Moscow have been rebuffed and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. It is time to move on and put the right label on the office of the man who holds the silly and ahistorical title, "Major" Archbishop.
Also, adding the patriarchal title to Kyiv could counter the pope's insensitive and ignorant remarks to Russian youth regarding the despots who ruled Russia.
This could mitigate these thoughtless comments a small bit and be seen as a conciliatory gesture.
I am glad that His Beatitude, Sviatoslav spoke out strongly against Francis' remarks.
Thank you for this very educational post, you are obviously very learned on these matters.
I agree entirely with your condemnation of 'nationalism over the Gospel', which is one of the major errors of what is erroneously called "The Orthodox Church" (in reality, a loose grouping of schismatic entities, and, worse , ethno-nationalists in truth).
I am obviously nowhere near as knowledgeable as you on these matters, yet I would dissent from your comments on the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Imo, anything left over from the Crusades should be honoured and glorified, not least since the success of First Crusade is likely the greatest ever human achievement.
I am also surprised by the claim that the West "never really helped" the east against Islamic expansion, despite the several crusades being launched over time. I have always held the opposite has been true. Was not the sack of Constantinople by Latin Crusaders not in part motivated by unkept promises of support?
The other part of the motivation was, seemingly, a desire of Venetian officers to avenge the anti-Latin pogrom which had occurred in the City not long before. Hence why the Horses of St Mark (a trophy from Constantinople) now adorn the Basilica in Venice.
It seems clear to me that the West was always the engine room of Christianity, the East had its hands full simply keeping its own head above water. Sadly, a house divided cannot stand, as the saying goes.
Florence-Ferrarra was in the 15th century, and the western Church promised but failed to provide military aid to Constantinople, which then fell to the Turks.
The pillage of the Fourth Crusade cannot be justified by any act of men who wore the cross.
The desecration of the Holy Gifts because they were under the species of leavened bread, bringing whores into Hagia Sophia and committing indecent acts in the church with them, the use of the baptistry to stable horses, the hacking of the ikons on the templon-ikonostas are sacreligious. There is no excuse, none, for any of this mortally sinful behavior.
In the City the rape of women, including nuns, the slaughter of monks, priests and laity, the buggery of boys and young men, the taking of some of the people to be sold into slavery to the Muslims, the stealing of relics, sacred art and vessels are all evil, inspired by blood lust that comes from satan. The was NO excuse real or imagined for any of these acts.
The other foolish Crusades were land grabs, yes, Western Christians wanted to "save" the holy places so the could set up their own "kingdoms" and supplant the valid occupants of Eastern Sees with their own Latin bishops. The Crusader's desire to subjugate the Eastern Christians and force them to become Latins is well established. The spurious "Latin "Patriachate" is a result of these anti anti Gospel efforts.
Graham, the teaching of the Church, not your own false and uniformed belief govern the Catholic Church's teaching on the Eastern Churches. Deo gratias.
The CCC, canon law, various papal and Roman documents all go against your comments regarding the Eastern Churches. The many visits of Patriachs, Catholicos and Eastern hierarchs to Rome and the return visits of popes to Eastern bishops deny your sad bias.
Above all, the united prayers of popes, bishops and clergy of the Latin Church with Eastern hierarchs and clergy supremely stand against your ideas of the reality of what is actually "impaired" unity of the Roman Church with the Orthodox Churches.
Orthodox eccesiology differs in some ways from that of the RCC, and some of it sadly is ethnically based. These ethnical aberrations are based in small Churches pulling together in countries threatened by the Latins and the Muslims.
What Putin the Malevolent is doing is a sham form of nationalism hidden in a perverted desire to take land and populations that were not Russia's to take, no matter the always moving country boundaries in Eastern Europe. Ukraine is and was a sovereign nation.
The Faith the Orthodox Churches hold, with valid Orders and the other Mysteries, the deep love and devotion to the Theotokos, monasticsim, and faithfulness to the Apostolic Faith makes them our closest brothers and sisters in Christ.
Despite the attempts of forced conversions by the Muslims and the attempts by Latins to force Easterners into the RCC the Orthodox Churches, small though they be, witness to Christ-God under circumstances Westerners cannot even imagine.
As a side note, "Dominus Iesus" the "Declaration of the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 deletes the unilateral Latin addition of the "filioque" in proclaiming the Nicene-Constantnopolitan Creed.
Every pope or cleric of the Catholic Church in proclaiming this shared Creed in prayer with the Orthodox omits the "filioque" since 1964 when Paul 6 and Athanagoros 1 met in Jerusalem for joint prayer and veneration of the holy places.
From your posts I see you live in Scotland. There are few Orthodox there, maybe if you knew more of them well the callousness you proclaim might be modified. Maybe not.
There is no hope for union with the protestants for ecclesiological and theological reasons, especially the "ordination" now of female "clergy."
Our best hope for union, though it will be long in coming, is to work for full communion with the Orthodox Churches.
So an office in the Church (real or sham) is based on the "personalities" of the men who hold these at a particular time?
As His Holiness said, "...people don’t strive for titles, (really?) but one thing I can be sure of is that neither the current patriarch nor his predecessor were that type of person at all."
Hands down, this was the best thing I read all month. Well worth the subscription.
A great read. Impressive research.
Thanks so much for packing a huge period of ecclesiastical change into such a small space. History does matter. Especially for those who are ignorant of the complications and blunder into offending those who remember old historic wrongs, real or exaggerated.
Another fantastic Pillar explainer! Well done and thank you!
Excellent read. Here are my two cents on the matter: tradition links the title 'patriarch' in the early church to the sees established by St. Peter: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, a disciple of St. Peter, so it was considered as being founded by St. Peter himself. Pope St. Gregory the Great attested to this.
Jerusalem and Constantinople (one might also add Cyprus, which was declared an autonomous ecclesiastical territory by the third council in 431 AD) were known only as archbishoprics.
Constantinople, due to its status as the 'Nouvelle Rome,' began to claim the title in the 5th century, and Jerusalem, on account of its significance as the Holy Land, also started to make this claim. Now, considering that the title was acknowledged for the See of Alexandria, despite not being directly founded by St. Peter, the title might be bestowed on other sees derived from the Petrine Throne – i.e. just as the See of Alexandria was founded by a mandate from the Petrine Office in Rome, and See of Constantinople claimed that title on account of being a ‘new Rome’, the title could be conferred upon archbishops through a mandate from the Petrine Office.
In other words, a distinction should be made between autonomous ecclesiastical territories (e.g., the See of Cyprus, which never claimed the title) and non-autonomous ecclesiastical territories, which by virtue of their institution or privilege granted by the Petrine Office, can legitimately claim the title.
People tend to confuse autonomy and the title of patriarch, but the two are indeed distinct.
Antioch claims Peter as it's first bishop, not Alexandria, hence a patriarchal title for Antioch. Alexandria claims Mark, a disciple of Peter, as its first bishop, hence a patriarchal title. While Mark was not an Apostle he was one of the "70" and close in establishing a major Church.
The Old Rite contained a "Feast of the Chair of Peter at Antioch." Also, there was a "Feast of the Chair of Peter in Rome."
The former, for whatever reason, was suppressed in the Calendar of the NO. This was a thoughtless omission since it recognized that Antioch had an Apostolic foundation.
My friend, Alexandria, was considered a Petrine see because St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter (See Pope St. Gregory the Great, Epistle IX, https://byzantiumonbrew.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/pope-st-gregory-the-great-on-the-three-petrine-sees/). Your note has nothing to do with my point.
Similarly, the Holy Roman Church does not deny that the See of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and that he instituted St. Evodius as the city bishop. Pope St. John XXIII in 1960 (before Vatican II) combined the memorials of St. Peter's Chair in Rome (January 19) and St. Peter's Chair in Antioch (February 22). The Roman Calendar of 1970 went a step further and combined the memorials of St. Peter's Chair, St. Peter's Chains (August 01), with his feast (June 29), which is a holy day of obligation in most of Christendom.
The simplification of the Roman Calendar does not mean, in any way, that the church stopped recognizing the apostolic origins of the See of Antioch. However, it should be noted that neither Antioch nor Alexandria stands on par with the See of Rome.
Yes, the papacy of the Roman See has "developed" into what it is today.
While Rome has always held a "primacy" how this was exercised in the first millennia was quite different that it is exercised today.
The Roman primacy was based on three things; It was the second and last See founded by Peter, it is where he suffered martyrdom and the later was the seat of the Roman Empire.
I'm sorry, friend, but Alexandria was founded by John Mark, while a disciple of Peter the Protrepitikos of St Clement of Alexandria states Mark was the founder of the See of Alexandria. This document of the Church of Alexandria simply mentions Mark was a disciple of Peter.
This Church has always been called the "See of St. Mark." The ancient Anaphoras of Alexandrian Church mention Mark, not Peter leading the list of saints after the Virgin. The Coptic Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox call Mark the founder of the See they all claim.
As to a conflating of the "Chair of Peter at Antioch" and the "Chair of Peter at Rome" the Martyrology makes no mention of this.
Antioch is Antioch, Rome is Rome.
The orations in the NO Missal for the Feast of the Chair of Peter mention noting about a "chair" but only elucidate that the Lord found the Church on the rock of Peter's faith.
Despite what I might wrongly take as a theme in your writing above Peter was not and did not need to be the founder of most of the Apostolic Churches.
Thanks for this great article, I have always wondered about this very topic.
It is much more complex than I had imagined!
Its interesting / curious to note that, although the Church now refers to Western Christianity as "Roman Catholicism" instead of "Latin Catholicism" - for various underhand reasons - it still refers to "Latin Patriarchs".
Interesting to note also that Rome prefers to avoid potentially offending the Orthodox, than granting the wishes of Ukrainian Greek-Catholics to have their own Patriarch. This kind of respect is never returned sadly, and imo it shows how the Church authorities have their priorities mixed up. We saw this again just the other day, with Francis hurting his Ukrainian flock with his glowing praise for Russia.
The distinction between the ancient Patriarchates and the newer, honourific ones is interesting. I had heard of the Patriarch of Venice, but not of Lisbon.
The spurious Latin "suppositions" of patriarchal titles for the Archbishops for Jerusalem, Goa, Lisbon, Venice and the two Indies are a sham. These have no place in the eccleaiology of the Latin Church. But then popes can do whatever they want. These titles were generally "honorifics" given for political reasons and demonstrations of "power" of the bishop of Rome. The so called "Latin Patriarch" should especially be suppressed since it was a slap in the face left over from the Crusader Kingdoms. The "office" was to be used against the legitimate Eastern Patriarchs who hold that title and authority.
History well proves that there was a pentachy, declared by first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.
The other 14 Councils held in the West are General Councils of only the Western Churches. The Easterners were not validly represented at these Western Councils. Hence they are not truly "Ecumenical" Councils that included the Eastern part of the Church. The separation of the Churches assured this.
Florence-Ferrera was attended by Eastern bishops but only for the need of the West to help stem the Islamic hordes invading traditional Christian lands. A help that was promised but a help that never really came.
The Eastern Emperor forced Eastern bishops to assent to inassentable articles of belief foreign to the Tradition and ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches. With the exception of St. Mark of Ephesus, the other Eastern bishops, under pressure gave assent to these Latin teachings.
When these bishops returned home and news spread of their apostasy some bishops were exiled by their people, some simply ignored and others pelted with rotten food and rocks.
In the East "reception" by the people is part of acceptance of a new or "clarified" teaching.
Why Benedict "dropped" the title of "Patriarch of the West (or of Rome) is incomprehensible. The title demonstrated the place of primacy that the bishop of Rome holds among the other Apostolic Patriarchs. It doesn't seem, given B16's overtures to the Orthodox to fit in with his agenda. Nor does it seem like a "power grab" to accentuate Roman authority over the other Apostolic Patriarchs. None of this fits into B16's gentle and conciliatory way.
As for Patriarch Sviatoslav it is sad that he only bears this title among most Ukrainian Catholics. The political games played by Rome (such as the "Chinese-Vatican" policy) are of little help to the faithful.
Given the heresiarch (of nationalism over the Gospel) Kyrill the Acolyte of
Moscow's behavior and that of most of the ROC now could be a good time to officially give the title to Sviatoslav.
Will it anger the Russians and others in league with them? Yes. But in past history when has Rome really cared what the Orthodox think or do (other than try to absorb these Churches)?
Francis' overtures to Moscow have been rebuffed and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. It is time to move on and put the right label on the office of the man who holds the silly and ahistorical title, "Major" Archbishop.
Also, adding the patriarchal title to Kyiv could counter the pope's insensitive and ignorant remarks to Russian youth regarding the despots who ruled Russia.
This could mitigate these thoughtless comments a small bit and be seen as a conciliatory gesture.
I am glad that His Beatitude, Sviatoslav spoke out strongly against Francis' remarks.
Hi Bisbee
Thank you for this very educational post, you are obviously very learned on these matters.
I agree entirely with your condemnation of 'nationalism over the Gospel', which is one of the major errors of what is erroneously called "The Orthodox Church" (in reality, a loose grouping of schismatic entities, and, worse , ethno-nationalists in truth).
I am obviously nowhere near as knowledgeable as you on these matters, yet I would dissent from your comments on the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Imo, anything left over from the Crusades should be honoured and glorified, not least since the success of First Crusade is likely the greatest ever human achievement.
I am also surprised by the claim that the West "never really helped" the east against Islamic expansion, despite the several crusades being launched over time. I have always held the opposite has been true. Was not the sack of Constantinople by Latin Crusaders not in part motivated by unkept promises of support?
The other part of the motivation was, seemingly, a desire of Venetian officers to avenge the anti-Latin pogrom which had occurred in the City not long before. Hence why the Horses of St Mark (a trophy from Constantinople) now adorn the Basilica in Venice.
It seems clear to me that the West was always the engine room of Christianity, the East had its hands full simply keeping its own head above water. Sadly, a house divided cannot stand, as the saying goes.
Florence-Ferrarra was in the 15th century, and the western Church promised but failed to provide military aid to Constantinople, which then fell to the Turks.
The pillage of the Fourth Crusade cannot be justified by any act of men who wore the cross.
The desecration of the Holy Gifts because they were under the species of leavened bread, bringing whores into Hagia Sophia and committing indecent acts in the church with them, the use of the baptistry to stable horses, the hacking of the ikons on the templon-ikonostas are sacreligious. There is no excuse, none, for any of this mortally sinful behavior.
In the City the rape of women, including nuns, the slaughter of monks, priests and laity, the buggery of boys and young men, the taking of some of the people to be sold into slavery to the Muslims, the stealing of relics, sacred art and vessels are all evil, inspired by blood lust that comes from satan. The was NO excuse real or imagined for any of these acts.
The other foolish Crusades were land grabs, yes, Western Christians wanted to "save" the holy places so the could set up their own "kingdoms" and supplant the valid occupants of Eastern Sees with their own Latin bishops. The Crusader's desire to subjugate the Eastern Christians and force them to become Latins is well established. The spurious "Latin "Patriachate" is a result of these anti anti Gospel efforts.
Graham, the teaching of the Church, not your own false and uniformed belief govern the Catholic Church's teaching on the Eastern Churches. Deo gratias.
The CCC, canon law, various papal and Roman documents all go against your comments regarding the Eastern Churches. The many visits of Patriachs, Catholicos and Eastern hierarchs to Rome and the return visits of popes to Eastern bishops deny your sad bias.
Above all, the united prayers of popes, bishops and clergy of the Latin Church with Eastern hierarchs and clergy supremely stand against your ideas of the reality of what is actually "impaired" unity of the Roman Church with the Orthodox Churches.
Orthodox eccesiology differs in some ways from that of the RCC, and some of it sadly is ethnically based. These ethnical aberrations are based in small Churches pulling together in countries threatened by the Latins and the Muslims.
What Putin the Malevolent is doing is a sham form of nationalism hidden in a perverted desire to take land and populations that were not Russia's to take, no matter the always moving country boundaries in Eastern Europe. Ukraine is and was a sovereign nation.
The Faith the Orthodox Churches hold, with valid Orders and the other Mysteries, the deep love and devotion to the Theotokos, monasticsim, and faithfulness to the Apostolic Faith makes them our closest brothers and sisters in Christ.
Despite the attempts of forced conversions by the Muslims and the attempts by Latins to force Easterners into the RCC the Orthodox Churches, small though they be, witness to Christ-God under circumstances Westerners cannot even imagine.
As a side note, "Dominus Iesus" the "Declaration of the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 deletes the unilateral Latin addition of the "filioque" in proclaiming the Nicene-Constantnopolitan Creed.
Every pope or cleric of the Catholic Church in proclaiming this shared Creed in prayer with the Orthodox omits the "filioque" since 1964 when Paul 6 and Athanagoros 1 met in Jerusalem for joint prayer and veneration of the holy places.
From your posts I see you live in Scotland. There are few Orthodox there, maybe if you knew more of them well the callousness you proclaim might be modified. Maybe not.
There is no hope for union with the protestants for ecclesiological and theological reasons, especially the "ordination" now of female "clergy."
Our best hope for union, though it will be long in coming, is to work for full communion with the Orthodox Churches.
So an office in the Church (real or sham) is based on the "personalities" of the men who hold these at a particular time?
As His Holiness said, "...people don’t strive for titles, (really?) but one thing I can be sure of is that neither the current patriarch nor his predecessor were that type of person at all."
Imagine if people would just consider "I don't like Pope Francis but maybe he's right"
Nah
Fantastic explainer, as usual. I think that it was just another excuse for the guys to mention Abp. Pierbattista Pizzaballa again.
Excellent! And quite interesting. We should start calling our bishops archfather.
Cool!