#general synod

[sapphosremains]

the promised theological reflection on the general synod on prayers of love and faith - part 1

gonna be a big girl and use capitals sorry if its scary

as promised, this one will be less teary and personal, and more theological, but don't worry, you'll still get a big opinion of me and my personality! part 1 will address doctrine: why do we think it's changing, is it changing, should it be doctrine at all?

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. PLF is NOT allowing homosexual holy matrimony. If you want to understand what PLF is and isn't, you can read my previous post on this, or read the guidance (prepare to be wholly whish-washed by the whishy washy nature of it though), but essentially PLF is a set of prayers that can (come February 2025 if the General Synod does not block the motion then) be used by a minister to PRAY FOR people in a homosexual relationship (NOT a prayer for the relationship itself, nor is it a blessing). However, where doctrine is concerned, it is the idea that this is the definition of holy matrimony:

"marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity." - Church of England Canon B30

A) Why do we think it's changing?

So, if PLF is just prayers for people in a homosexual relationship, what are the issues? What doctrine do we think is changing? Surely we can pray for anyone?

Firstly, some think that the PLF motion would change doctrine because it will be agreed by B2, not B5. B2 is the process by which the General Synod can approve doctrinal liturgy.

Secondly, as in B30, the Church of England believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, some argue that praying for people in a same-sex marriage is praying for people engaging in extramarital sex as they will not recognise ssm as valid marriage. However, then, there should be no issue then with praying for celibate couples.

This doctrine also defines marriage as being for procreation and nurture of children, which a same-sex couple cannot naturally achieve. However, the Church permits marriage between couples who may struggle to conceive, and those too old to conceive, as well as allowing contraceptive methods.

B) Is it changing?

We have two examples of similar changes in the church before:

remarriage after divorce (passed in certain circumstances since 2002)

ordination of women (passed in 1992)

Unfortunately, we do not have examples of these liturgically as significant changes were not made (as far as I can find) to liturgy and passed through the B2 system, so I cannot judge whether this is a doctrinal change here. I would argue that both of these were doctrinal changes, though I know there are others that would disagree. Some would argue that the reasons for divorce that are accepted are enfolded in the doctrine of marriage in the first place - couples who do not exclude all others for each other, do not help and comfort each other, etc could be considered 'invalid' marriages, therefore making divorce acceptable without doctrinal changes.

And again, PLF is not same sex holy matrimony! I think some think that this is a 'gateway drug' of slippery slopes to a crazy gay church (read: tolerant, loving, inclusive church that demonstrates Christ's unwavering and unconditional love). So, no, I don't think doctrine is changing. Even if praying for gay couples is praying for those engaging in extramarital sex, do we not pray for all 'sinners'?

Let's examine PLF more in its wording for the couple.

Prayer of dedication:

"enfold your servants N and N with your encouragement, hope, and love. Fill them with the grace to rejoice always in their love for one another,"

Prayer for companionship

"give grace to your servants N and N, that they may be companions in joy"

Prayer for grace to live well:

"give N and N wisdom and devotion in the ordering of their life together. May they dwell together in love and peace all the days of their life, seeking one another’s welfare, bearing one another’s burdens and sharing one another’s joys;"

Prayer for God's blessing:

"we give you thanks for N and N, for the love and friendship they share, and for their commitment to one another. As they come before you this day, trusting you as the giver of all good gifts, strengthen their love by your love, and gladden their hearts with your joy, that their journey through life may become a pilgrimage of grace. By your blessing, and with you as their companion and guide, may they rejoice in hope and be sustained in love all the days of their life and in the age to come, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

or

"Pour out, we pray, the abundance of your grace upon N and N in their life together. By your blessing, may they share in the joy of your kingdom where goodness and mercy abound; and bring them to feast with your saints for ever"

For lifelong peace:

"look with favour on N and N as they journey together through life. Deepen their love and strengthen their wills to honour the commitment they have made, that they may continue in lifelong faithfulness and friendship to each other;"

Everything else follows similarly, with no differences in what love is referred to etc. Main issues raised with the phrasing is that it is too similar to that of Holy Matrimony. I would argue that the main focus of all of the phrasing is the relationship between the individuals and God, with very little focused on their relationship. When the word 'love' is used, it is non-specific - Jesus had 'love' for his disciples. The prayers of covenanted friendship also use the word love, and also describe the pair's 'life together', so the issues with the phrasing come from the type of relationship, not the phrasing itself. When we acknowledge that this is the issue, that we are praying for and using these words in reference to a homosexual relationship, we return to the original issue of it being against doctrine, which we determined it is not.

C) Should it be doctrine at all?

I won't say much on this, because there are several articles I know of (and I'm sure many, many more of which I don't) that explain why doctrines against homosexuality are not Biblically supported, explaining the complex nuance of the time in which the Bible was written, extraneous influences such as Roman culture, and surrounding issues in the anti-gay 'clobber' passages, but essentially, the support for doctrinal anti-gay is weak. I would argue that we should be critically considering and praying on all aspects of doctrine to ensure that it is in line with His Word and pleasing to Him, as far as it can be. As Martyn Snow acknowledged at the Synod, 'this side of Heaven, the Church will never be perfect'. If, after the resurrection, sat at His table, we discover that homosexuality is indeed repugnant to His law, I concede. However, I think accepting doctrine as doctrine, and using this as a key argument is problematic. Recall all the past doctrines we would consider to be heretical today! Without critical thinking, prayer, and discernment, we cannot become more amenable to God. We should strive for perfection, and that includes critically analysing things we take as 'gospel'!

God bless you all, and may you all feel His extraordinary love. Let us hope and pray that this disagreement does not cause such schism in His Church, and that we can all consider each other and each other's viewpoints with love, understanding, and compassion. Let us pray for our LGBTQ+ siblings in this continued time of difficulty as our rights and God's love for us continue to be debated.

Useful resources:

Unfortunately, I can't find the best resource I read about the context of the 'clobber verses' and the idea that they were written in a culture of rejecting most Roman practices as heretical, but if I do find it I'll update this.

Prayers of Love and Faith:

Canons:

Watch the General Synod: (see Monday 8 Afternoon for the PLF debate)

https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=mastersessays

[possil]

THE BISHOPS OR THE BIBLE

How does a denomination respond when it faces a potentially fatal split? The Church of England’s answer is a frantic fudge. The fudge satisfies no one and only prolongs the agony of a denomination at war with itself At their meeting next month the most contentious issue facing the CofE’s governing body, the General Trustees, will be same-sex marriage. Many are vociferously pressing for the…

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in Irish History | 22 August:

565 – St Columba reports seeing a monster in Loch Ness, Scotland. 1755 – Birth of General Jean Joseph Amable Humbert. He was a French soldier, a participant in the French Revolution, who led a failed invasion of Ireland to assist Irish rebels in 1798. 1791 – Theobald Wolfe Tone publishes “An argument on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland”. 1798 – Birth of doctor, writer, abolitionist and…

[loremonster]

I'd say the children of people who shouldn't have had kids.

Still, fully agreed.

we are the daughters of parents who should not have had kids

[sheltiechicago]

Vatican City

Priests, bishops and cardinals preside at Holy Mass with the College of Cardinals for the opening of the XVI ordinary general assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Vatican City. Women were allowed to vote for the first time at the meeting of bishops as the Vatican sought to address some of the church’s thorniest issues as part of an agenda that has rattled many conservatives.

Photograph: Antonio Masiello/Getty Images

[irishgop]

The United Church of Christ elected Rev. Karen Georgia Thompson its first female & woman of African descent to lead the mainline denomination as general minister and president on Monday July 3 at its 34th General Synod in Indianapolis.

[sapphicmuppet]

unresolved things still in my brain post fhjy finale

okay hihi this is not me trying to nitpick I just have a lot of unresolved thoughts!! okay here we go

Buckys arc:

I don’t have a ton of stuff to say just generally his arc being unresolved, being counted as a follower of Cassandra but that never being formally gone over, him still living with Mac and Donna, him skipping class, the drama with his adventuring party etc.

Bobby Dawn:

another self explanatory one, Sandra Lynn never finding out he was teaching at school, him escaping scot free, the drama in the sol pantheon, him never finding buddy etc. Just a lot of unanswered questions

Mazey Graduating:

for having a finale that has a lot of emphasis on the Fabian/Mazey relationship I wish they went over that Mazey IS a senior and graduated at the end of the year and is presumably going to college in the fall, and just the logistics of her being a college student still dating someone in highschool, just interesting having them get together when they’re already going in separate paths. I wish they went over it!! because now in my brain I have to justify it as a summer thing because they’re actively going to be doing other stuff the next school year.

Kipperlilly (and Jace):

okay so. Kipperlily was never rage starred or she willing took on the ragestar whatever I NEED TO KNOW MORE. Ik the point is that the ratgrinders suck and are inexperienced heroes but the realization that she essentially took all of The Ratgrinders down with her and gave them up to Porter, wasn’t being controlled by him in the way the rest of them were, had an even more direct hand in Lucy’s death, but also was still being manipulated by Porter for years?? I need it to get gone over. Also Kipperlily staying dead? to be clear it shouldn’t be The Bad Kids’ jobs to have to deal with the moral question on if the ratgrinders deserve being revived but there’s so much unsaid about Kipperlily and so much she didn’t get to do ugh. And in her final moments her absolute hatred towards Riz just being justified? In her eyes. Idk. Lots of thoughts. AND JACE!! Porter ADMITS to killing Jace himself and shatterstarring him and says he will do it again, but also Jace is clearly under Porter’s control to a degree and wasn’t revived too. I wish we knew more about him because as of what we know right now it seems crazy to keep him dead without questioning him and with him being Porters partner in this whole thing he could fully reveal everything Porter and The Ratgrinders had been doing the past three years.

Bakur:

idk just minor stuff with Bakur. He never regained his elf status which was interesting? We never saw the resolution of his fight with Lydia etc

Kalina:

Okay the acknowledgment in the finale that Kalina seems to genuinely have her own free will and moral compass outside of Cassandra is making me crazy because I just assumed she was tied to Cassandra so when she was good Kalina was too by default but there’s so much not cleared up about her. She DID lure Cassandra to the synod where she was weak and fostered the rage in Cassandra about Kristen’s treatment of her. She killed herself and was trying to communicate to Riz about Porter. Ankarna has NEVER trusted her. She had the spies tongue with Porter. She’s escaping with Buddy at the end. WHATS HAPPENING WHAT IS SHE DOING AGGHHHHH

[lgbtpopcult]

Best WLW News Stories of 2023

Meet South Korea’s first lesbian couple to have a child

[whencyclopedia]

Orosius

Paulus Orosius (usually given as Orosius, 5th century CE) was a Christian theologian and historian who was also a friend and protege of St. Augustine of Hippo (l. 354-430 CE). He is best known for his work Seven Books of History Against the Pagans in which he argued that the 410 CE sack of Rome by Alaric I, King of the Goths (r. 394-410 CE) had nothing to do with the Roman adoption of Christianity, a claim popularly supported among the pagans of the day. He was encouraged to undertake the work by Augustine whose book City of God was inspired by the same event. Tracing the history of the world from creation to his own time, from a Christian perspective, Orosius' work was immensely popular with followers of the new religion and became a standard history referenced by later writers. Following the publication of his book, he disappears from the historical record.

Life & Career

Little is known of Orosius' early life. He was probably born in Portugal to an upper-class family in c. 380 CE and entered the priesthood at some point in his early years, probably before the age of 20. In 414 CE he was forced to leave his home in Hispania quickly (for unknown reasons) and booked passage on a ship to Hippo in North Africa to meet Saint Augustine. He seems to have made a good impression on the older cleric because, the next year, Augustine sent him to Jerusalem to debate with the heretic Pelagius, author of the Pelagian Heresy, which claimed that man was capable of individual salvation without the church's intercession.

In Jerusalem, Orosius conferred with Saint Jerome and John, Bishop of Jerusalem and faced Pelagius at a synod called to discuss the heresy. The outcome was inconclusive but, in the official report sent to Rome, Orosius' own orthodoxy was questioned. This charge prompted him to write his defense in the book Liber Apologeticus contra Pelagianos (Defense against Pelagius) maintaining his orthodoxy while condemning Pelagius.

Orosius left Palestine at some point in early 416 CE, having been given the relics of the first Christian martyr Saint Stephen (from the biblical Book of Acts 6 & 7) to bring back to his home in Portugal. He stopped first in Hippo to deliver letters to Augustine from Jerome, and it is generally thought that Augustine approached him at this time regarding writing his history.

Most scholars agree that Orosius' history shows signs of being written in haste and perhaps Augustine wanted it finished quickly so that he could use it as a resource in completing City of God. Other theories suggest that Orosius assisted in writing City of God and his history is written quickly because he was working on two pieces at once. All of this is speculation, however, because all that is really known is that Orosius left Hippo and returned with St. Stephen's relics to Portugal. He then wrote his history and, shortly afterwards, disappeared.

Continue reading...

[seriouslysam8]

What inspired your decision to have Dumbledore so closely connected to the Potters in Brumous (and also, seemingly your timetravel story)?

Do you tend to maintain your character backstories across the separate AUs—like with Demelza/Teegan?

I always found it weird that James gave Dumbledore is antique family invisibility cloak. James, having grown up with Fleamont and Henry, would know how it was from his Peverell line. While he may not know it was a deathly hallow, perhaps as generations wore on they thought it just a myth, James knew it was an important family relic. To just give that to Dumbledore seems odd unless there’s some close bond between them. Being only 21, being a former student and a member of the Order just doesn’t add up.

Not to mention, Dumbledore let a bunch of fresh out of Hogwarts kids join the Order? Especially with his strict stance that you MUST be an adult to join with parental permission - a la the Weasley twins.so, James, Sirius, Remus, Peter, and Lily all joining seems a tad bit odd… unless someone cough Fleamont cough not only vouched for them but Dumbledore also knew at least one of them very intimately, aka James.

Then, there’s Dumbledore relationship with Harry. It was Dumbledore who found him a home after Jily died, not the Ministry. It was Dumbledore who kept tabs on him. It was Dumbledore who tried to maintain Harry’s innocence and let him be a kid for as long as possible until the prophecy would come crashing down on him. It could be argued he did all of this because of the prophecy, but I’m not one for the manipulative Dumbledore trope. I like him as a character who is smart and knows he’s smart but he’s blinded sometimes by his own intelligence and doesn’t always make the right calls, i.e. keeping Harry in the dark in OOTP, forcing Sirius to stay at Grimmauld, not seeing the real spy in Peter and in turn accepting the seemingly obvious answer that it was Sirius.

Speaking of that, it also seems odd Dumbledore never questioned Sirius. He didn’t want to talk to him? I mean, the guy seemingly spied on him for over a year and Dumbledore didn’t have questions? Blah, blah, plot device, blah, blah. Or maybe, Dumbledore was so enraged by Sirius’ betrayal because he did everything to protect his godson’s son and it didn’t matter in the end anyway. He needed someone to blame and Sirius was easy to blame, the wicked godfather who didn’t protect his godson.

So, I don’t know. I like their being a bit of lore between the Dumbledore’s and Potters - both of whom had generations of their family living in Godric’s Hollow. Henry and Dumbledore could potentially be the same age and could have been besties while at school.

As for if my own personal backstories and headcanons are the same among all my stories… yes. Demelza will always be Ginny’s bestie. Tegan will always be Demelza’s mom. David Robins will always die at the ends of Augustus Rookwood during his arrest. Harry will always be a premie (though his birth story does differ between Petrichor and Synodic). Walburga will always be in love with Tom Riddle. Andromeda will always consider herself more of Sirius’ big sister than older cousin. Robards and Tegan will always be besties. Dumbledore and Henry will always be besties and Dumbledore will always be Fleamont’s godfather. I try to maintain these backstories so I don’t get them all confused between different series and fuck it all up. Plus, I put so much time and effort into these backstories that I fall in love with them and then forget what’s canon and what’s not.

[sapphosremains]

a personal reflection on the cofe general synod's prayers of love and faith decision

to be followed by a theological one at some point

**this post is rife with grammatical erors! i wrote it at 1am! i'm trying to get through them as i notice them but i apologise in advance**

this blog is a theological blog. when it is personal, it is reposts, or occasionally personal theological reflections, but today, after weeks of thought on the decision made by the general synod back in early july on prayers of love and faith, i cannot yet be theological. right now, this is a personal thing, and i do not have the space to be theological. despite this inability to fulfil my usual aims with the blog, i will still be writing and posting this, because it deserves to be heard, and i deserve to be heard. the voices of lgbtq people deserve to be heard, especially when they have such love for their faith and such tolerance for others that they continue in a church which supports them so little, and abuses them so often.

i could not help but cry watching the proceedings of the general synod as they discussed whether ministers should be allowed to pray for people in homosexual relationships. it is important to understand that the prayers of love and faith (plf) 'suite of resources' does not allow prayers for the relationship, only the people in it. i have tried, and i have heard the arguments by members of the alliance group and others rejecting plf, but i cannot remotely understand how anyone could reject it. as fr stuart cradduck put so powerfully, ministers bless (that's right - bless, not just pray for) sewage plants, and statues of margaret thatcher. in fact, even we as the laity are allowed, and encouraged, to pray for sinners in compassion and love. so, even if one did view homosexual relationships as sinful, how do we reconcile praying for murderers and blessing sewage plants with the stark rejection of praying for the people in a God-centered, loving relationship? again, not the relationship. and, as we see in praying for sinners, prayer is not an endorsement. where can the logic in rejecting prayers for people be?

i am in the process of discernment. i feel called by God to be a priest, administering the sacraments and serving His people. i also feel called by God to marriage. in fact, i have believed since i met her (and this is a belief that has only grown more fervent as we have been together) that God calls me to her. i won't give you all the reasons, but our meeting was as a result of a number of extraordinary circumstances for me, our initial friendship pulled me out of a very difficult circumstance (one i asked God to alleviate), our relationship worked patiently and tirelessly through difficulties in dealing with my trauma, she has drawn me closer and closer to God and His holy, catholic (little c not Roman) Church, and He has answered my prayers in every aspect pertaining to our relationship. our relationship is God-centered, and the fruits of it are the fruits of the work of the Holy Spirit. we go to church together. what, in this, had it been a man, could possibly be so awful? yet, as it stands, i cannot have both of the things that i feel God is calling me towards. i feel i am meant to be an ambassador of the eternal love offered in His church signified by my same-sex marriage (ssm) in the priesthood. why should i have to choose? why should i be allowed to choose which of His callings is most important? that is not my decision. if i have both callings, like many priests have a calling to their heterosexual marriage, why am i put in a position where i should make a choice on His divine will?

it also felt like speakers who voted against seemed to focus on the idea of negotiable doctrine. the idea that plf means that doctrine is negotiable. firstly, there was ambiguity and vagueness that did not help this argument. it was unclear whether speakers were arguing against the potential 'support' of sex outside of marriage that plf could create, or just the 'support' of gay relationships. again, as addressed above, it does neither. however, it is still not changing doctrine. against speakers seemed to convey the feeling that plf brought vast doctrinal changes (such as allowing homosexual holy matrimony), or that this doctrine exists in the first place. firstly, plf does not bring doctrinal changes. it prays for people, as we pray for all people. secondly, this is not doctrine in the same way that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and fully God is doctrine. this is not doctrine in the same way that believing in the existence of God is doctrine. this is a matter of a few passages that we know are rife with translation errors and cultural misunderstandings.

should it constitute a doctrinal change, the words of mtr brenda wallace, who discussed how we accepted doctrinal changes about divorce, despite scripture seeming to forbid it (more clearly than in passages about homosexuality, i would argue), were powerful. she, along with bishop sarah mullally, emphasised that at the heart of this problem are real people, who we put at risk the more we tie ourselves up in theology, law, and doctrine.

although i am grateful for the passing of the motion on plf, its existence as procrastination, again well put by cradduck, cannot be denied. furthermore, the statistics were disappointing. in a christian church which subscribes to the new testament assertion that love is the most important commandment, 12/39 bishops voted against plf, with five abstaining, 88/189 clergy voted against, with two abstaining, and 91/188 laity voted against, with two abstaining. to put this into more understandable numbers, 31% of bishops voted against, 47% of clergy voted against, and 48% of laity voted against. 46% of voters (supposedly representative of the church) oppose prayers for people in same sex relationships.

now, i am not someone without criticism of my own viewpoints, and i am aware of other reasons for voting against. some, like william harwood, argue, quite fairly, that they feel the motion was rushed, and lacks clarity on either side. i tend to agree. i would still argue that those in favour of inclusivity should vote favourably, but his point is understandable. i also understood the viewpoint of the bishop of bath and wells michael beasley, that through putting the plf prayers through b2, the process the synod uses for liturgy that expresses doctrine, plf implies doctrinal changes. this does seem an unwise, strong movement in an otherwise tentative course of action. of course, i would love to see the allowance of holy matrimony for homosexual couples, but i can understand the reluctance of those in support of plf for what they are - prayers - to put them through the doctrinal liturgy system. i also understand the frustration of many as expressed by fr aneal appadoo - there has evidently not been clarity and trust in this process. with all of these issues, it feels like the synod was so conflicted, and passed the motion so narrowly, because they were not voting on plf. they were voting on whether they believed this constituted doctrinal changes, they were voting on hopes and fears about future motions, and they were voting on the lack of trust they now held for the bishops.

as i have become more synodically and theologically-minded throughout this post, i do want to return to the human element. to return to the words of mtr brenda and bishop sarah about people. i love my girlfriend. i love God. and i love His Church. i cannot express how distressing it is that we need to argue so much about whether the love for all three is possible. i do not believe that God could ever condemn such love, and i cannot believe that a matter of gender supersedes any biblical and holy qualities of a love. above all, i feel naive. i feel silly, really, for having hope that i might be able to marry my wife someday in my church. i am grateful to other churches, such as the methodist and united reform churches (fun fact, i am actually christened united reform!) that allow ssm, but i just wish that i could offer my marriage up in the eyes of God in the church i know and love. i am sad, because i know that my vicar, and believe that the congregation, would be overjoyed to witness the marriage of me and my girlfriend, who they know very well and have watched our relationship flourish. i feel naive.

i pray for all involved, as it cannot have been an easy couple of hours. i would encourage others to watch this portion of the synod, if you're interested, but to prioritise your own wellbeing, as it could be difficult to listen to.

blessings and love and prayers to you all

may we continue to strive for love

[scotianostra]

On December 20th 1560 the first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was held.

The General Assembly is a meeting of ministers and elders that happens once a year to make decisions about how the church should be run, based on what Jesus has said in the Bible. The first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met in the Magdalene Chapel, on the Cowgate in December 1560. It had 6 ministers and 36 other members. By 1567 it had 252 ministers and 621 other members. Each year, a General Assembly appoints a Moderator who makes sure everything runs smoothly.

When the second General Assembly met in 1561, some thought it should only meet if the Queen allowed it. However John Knox argued that the Queen should have no power over the Assembly.

The General Assembly is the top tier of Church government and authority. Items of Assembly business are referred from synods, presbyteries, committees, and individuals. The Assembly sits for a week-long session annually in May at the debating-chamber on the Mound, Edinburgh.

The General Assembly can also meet elsewhere. A meeting of the Assembly was held in Glasgow to mark the city’s status as European City of Culture in 1990.

[apenitentialprayer]

Also, I can't believe I have to come to the defense of the fricking Church of England, but people are really whining over the fact that the Archbishop of York said that addressing God as "Father" might be hard for those who have been abused by fathers? People are making it sound like he suggested we edit the prayer or something, but the fullest quotation I can find from his General Synod address was:

I know the word 'father' can be problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have labored rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life

Like, oh no....... he has a measure of sympathy for those whose only tangible experience of fatherhood was bad? Am I missing something?

[thepastisalreadywritten]

By Courtney Mares

9 November 2024

For the first time in over a century, the historic Chair of St. Peter, a wooden throne symbolizing the pope’s magisterial authority, has been removed from its gilded bronze reliquary in St. Peter’s Basilica to be displayed for public veneration. 

Pilgrims and visitors can now behold this storied relic directly in front of the basilica’s main altar, just above the tomb of St. Peter, where it will remain on display until December 8, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

According to Pietro Zander, Head of the Necropolis and Artistic Heritage Section of the Vatican:

"The last major public viewing of the chair occurred in 1867, when Pope Pius IX exposed the Chair of Peter for the veneration of the faithful for 12 days on the 1,800th anniversary of the martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul."

It was the first time that the centuries-old wooden throne had been exhibited to the public since 1666 when it was first encased within Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s monumental bronze sculpture under the stained-glass Dove of the Holy Spirit window at the basilica’s apse.

Formally known as the Cathedra Sancti Petri Apostoli, or more simply as Cathedra Petri, the chair has held a revered place in Catholic tradition over the centuries, representing papal authority from St. Peter to the present.

“The chair is meant to be understood as the teacher’s ‘cathedra,’” art historian Elizabeth Lev told CNA.

“It symbolizes the pope’s duty to hand down the teaching of Christ from generation to generation.”

She explained:

“It’s antiquity [ninth century] speaks to a papacy that has endured through the ages — from St. Peter who governed a church on the run trying to evangelize with the might of the Roman Empire trying to shut him down, to the establishment of the Catholic Church and its setting down of roots in the Eternal City, to our 266th successor of St. Peter, Pope Francis.”

A Storied History

The wooden chair itself is steeped in history.

According to the Vatican, the wooden seat was likely given by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Bald to Pope John VIII in A.D. 875 for the emperor’s Christmas coronation in the old St. Peter’s Basilica.

A depiction of the emperor appears on the crossbeam of the chair, and its ivory panels illustrate the labors of Hercules along with other scenes from Greek mythology.

The informational sign near the chair in St. Peter’s Basilica informs visitors that “shortly after the year 1000, the Cathedra Petri began to be venerated as a relic of the seat used by the apostle Peter when he preached the Gospel first in Antioch and then in Rome.”

The Fabric of St. Peter, the organization responsible for the basilica’s upkeep, maintains:

“It cannot be ruled out that this ninth-century imperial seat may have later incorporated the panel depicting the labors of Hercules, which perhaps originally belonged to an earlier and more ancient papal seat.”

Before returning the chair to its place within Bernini’s monumental reliquary, Vatican experts will conduct a series of diagnostic tests with the Vatican Museums’ Cabinet of Scientific Research.

The ancient seat was last removed and studied from 1969 to 1974 under Pope Paul VI but was not shown to the public.

The recent restoration of Bernini’s works in the basilica, funded by the Knights of Columbus in preparation for the Catholic Church’s 2025 Jubilee Year, made it possible for the chair to be moved from the bronze sculpture in August.

Pope Francis got a sneak peak of the relic in early October and a photo of the moment — showing him sitting in a wheelchair before the Chair of St. Peter — quickly went viral.

Afterward, the pope requested that the relic be displayed for public veneration.

Francis ultimately decided that the Chair of St. Peter — a symbol of the Church’s unity under the instruction of Christ — would be unveiled for the public at the closing Mass for the Synod on Synodality.

“Pope Francis has been exceptionally generous to the faithful about displaying relics,” Lev said.

“He brought out the bones of St. Peter shortly after his election, he had the Shroud of Turin on view in 2015, and now he has taken the Chair of Peter out for veneration in the basilica.” 

“In our virtual age, where much confusion reigns between what is real and what is not, Pope Francis has encouraged us to come face to face with these ancient witnesses of our faith and our traditions.”

Feast of the Chair of St. Peter

The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, celebrated each year on February 22, dates back to the fourth century.

St. Jerome (A.D. 347–420) spoke of his respect for the “Chair of Peter,” writing in a letter:

“I follow no leader save Christ, so I enter into communion with … the Chair of Peter, for this I know is the rock upon which the Church is built.”

As Pope Benedict XVI explained in a 2006 catechesis:

“‘Cathedra’ literally means the established seat of the bishop, placed in the mother church of a diocese, which for this reason is known as a ‘cathedral.”

“It is the symbol of the bishop’s authority and in particular, of his ‘magisterium,’ that is, the evangelical teaching which, as a successor of the apostles, he is called to safeguard and to transmit to the Christian community,” he said.

When a bishop takes possession of the particular Church that has been entrusted to him, he sits on the cathedra, Benedict explained:

“From this seat, as teacher and pastor, he will guide the journey of the faithful in faith, hope, and charity.”

“The Church’s first ‘seat’ was the upper room, and it is likely that a special place was reserved for Simon Peter in that room where Mary, mother of Jesus, also prayed with the disciples,” he added.

Benedict XVI described Peter’s ministry as a journey from Jerusalem to Antioch, where he served as bishop, and ultimately to Rome.

He noted that the See of Rome, where Peter ultimately “ended his race at the service of the Gospel with martyrdom,” became recognized as the seat of his successors, with the cathedra representing the mission entrusted to Peter by Christ.

“So it is that the See of Rome, which had received the greatest of honors, also has the honor that Christ entrusted to Peter of being at the service of all the particular Churches for the edification and unity of the entire people of God,” he said.

Bernini’s Baroque Masterpiece

Bernini’s monumental reliquary for the chair, commissioned by Pope Alexander VII and completed in 1666, is one of the most iconic artworks in St. Peter’s Basilica.

Bernini encased the wooden relic within a bronze-gilded throne, dramatically raised and crowned by a stained-glass depiction of the Holy Spirit, symbolized as a dove, surrounded by sculpted angels.

The bronze throne is supported by massive statues of four doctors of the Church — two from the West, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, and two from the East, St. John Chrysostom and St. Athanasius.

It is symbolizing the unity of the Church through the ages, bringing together the teachings of both the Latin and Greek Church Fathers.

And at the top of the throne, cherubs hold up a papal tiara and keys symbolizing papal authority.

On the chair itself, there are three gold bas-reliefs representing the Gospel episodes: "consignment of the keys" (Matthew 16:19), “feed my sheep” (John 21:17), and the "washing of the feet" (John 13:1-17).

The ongoing restoration of Bernini’s monument at the Altar of the Chair, along with the recently finished restoration of the baldacchino, is significant not only in light of the 2025 Jubilee Year but also the upcoming 400th anniversary of the Consecration of the Current St. Peter’s Basilica in 2026.

Benedict XVI said:

“Celebrating the ‘Chair’ of Peter means attributing a strong spiritual significance to it and recognizing it as a privileged sign of the love of God, the eternal Good Shepherd, who wanted to gather his whole Church and lead her on the path of salvation.”

[deimos-awaits]

DEIMOSIAN REVIEW OF THE FIRST EXPLORATOR FLEET

<<<TRANSMISSION FROM DEIMOS HISTORICAL ARCHIVES…RECORDS WRITTEN BY MAGOS-HISTORIA ESTHER-MENDEELVEE ∆12.56π…UNSEALED BY ORDER OF THE HOLY INQUISITION, ORDRO MACHIUM, INQUISITOR SERAPH SERAPHDOTTIOR…105M42>>>

What can be said of the First Explorator Fleet of Deimos? To say anything of what has been called “Boats Full of Xenarites” and “The Best Damned Explorators This Side Of The Eye of Terror” Our beloved Deimos itself must be discussed even in brief. REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED. 

Deimos has long been a smaller Forgeworld by the standards of the Adeptus Mechanicus, which gained most of its raw material from what remains of the Solar System's asteroid belt and Kuiper Belt. However despite being smaller in sheer size and output that has made Deimos no less hungry than other Forge Worlds. As the munition makers of the Grey Knights the forges of Deimos have never been allowed to fall silent lest the Great Enemy find any weakness in the defenses of Holy Terra. It was established by taking one of Mars moons from its orbit and moving it forward Titan, before establishing a Forgeworld upon this small rock that grew equally outwards and in. One method of growing the surface area of the moon has been to bring other asteroids close enough that they might be added to its mass, leading the once small moon to be a network of hallowed out asteroids stitched together by human artifice and holy machinery. This has lead Deimos to be approximately REDACTED across and REDACTED percent the size of Holy Mars. 

Like every other Forgeworld the rediscovery of blessed STCs is paramount in the minds of masters of Deimos and thus the creation of their exploratory fleets. These fleets, each led by an Ark Mechancius, lead the way in search for archeotechnology.  Established as an semi-independent force by the Fabricator General REDACTED REDACTED of Deimos very soon after the establishment of Deimos as a Forgeworld.

In more recent history the First Exploratory Fleet has had two Magi Domini. The first was Magos Domina Omega Bellerov-1.0 and Technoarcheologist Magos Domina Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0.

Fabricator Minoris Magos Domina Omega Bellerov-1.0 was originally the techpriest in charge of the Purgation Maniple which undoubtedly tinted her perspective about leadership. Bellerov-1.0 was a plastisteel fisted ruler. Under her command skitarii, servitor, and techpriest alike were seen as utterly disposable to further the will and reach of the Omnissiah. They led the fleet for around two hundred standard years bringing back approximately three STC fragments to Deimos for study. However after an encounter with the Word Eaters Legion Warband known as REACTED, Bellerov began to grow eccentric but still functioned well within parameters. However, for nine standard decades after this, Bellerov-1.0 began to abandon the pursuit of STC fragments instead chasing down Slaaneshi dedicated cults including THE BLESSED GUARDIANS on Erophant III. 

Erophant III would be Magos Domina Omega Bellerov-1.0’s last stand after nearly 56.43% Skitarii, 80.31% servitor, and 23.48% Techpriest casualty rates, the fleets ruling Synod launched an investigation. Due to knowledge gained from serving the Grey Knights, Bellerov was deemed corrupted by KHORNE and promptly REDACTED.

Following this the oldest priest serving became the ruling Fabricator-Minoris Explorator of the Fleet as decreed by the fleets Synod, and Technoarcheologist Magos Aleph-Gimmel became Fabricator-Minoris Technoarcheologist Magos Domina Explorator Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0. 

Under Fabricator-Minoris Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0’s leadership 7 distinct STC fragments have been found. Further three Necron tomb worlds have been discovered and reported to the wider Imperium and novel weapons added to the arsenal of both Adeptus Mechanicus and Grey Knight forces. However her propensity towards the usage of Eldar and Necron technology has began to stir up declarations of REDACTED.

Fabricator-Minoris Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0 has utilized the combination of these two technologies after a meeting with Belisarius Cawl in order to form practical antipysker personal shielding that was spread within the First Explorator Fleet, however it's construction of necrodermis and wraithbone has lead most non Deimosian Techpriests that learn of it too decry it as hersey.

Fabricator-Minoris Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0 displays a knack for finding STC fragments to support her with that has lead to many supporters previously here on Deimos to claim that she was blessed truly by the Omnissiah. Further information can be found in LINK_MISSING. The First Explorator Fleet has also come to the aid of the Grey Knights with the resurgence of the Demon Prince ANGRON as the fleet Synod now holds a grudge against the chaos power known as KHORNE. 

However, it was the trade with the LEAGUE OF VOTANN KNOWN AS THE TRANSANDROMEDIAM COOPERATIVE for resources in addition to rumors of PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS that has lead to Fabricator-Minoris Aleph-Gimmel Bellerov-2.0 and the majority of her supporters to be declared by the Fabricator General Xenarite and Cawlian. In addition her supporters would be on a two hundred year penance crusade to recover lost technology before they could return to Deimos with the First Fleet. This was declared in 846M41. 

Organizationally, this Fleet, at last broadcast, was know to follow common organization of a Deimos force: a Skitarii-Infantry Maniple with three Cohorts, a Scout Maniple with three Cohorts, a Cybernetica Vanguard Maniple with three Cohorts, a Purgation Maniple with two cohorts and a independent Command Cohort run by the most senior tech priest present. The Command Cohort is usually comprised of choice selected unit by the leading priest. The Skitarii-Infantry Maniple are lead by two Skitarii Marshals and one Skitarius Preator. The Cyberntica Vanguard is typically run by any datasmith present and is composed typically of kastalean units and kataphron servitors. The Purgation Maniple, after Omega Bellerov-1.0’s REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED 

The Purgation Maniple, is led by a Manipulus not a Magos Dominus under any circumstances.  The Scout Maniple is led by autonomous Serybus and Sicariian Units. 

Further the First Explorator Fleet itself contains is known to contain two Ark Mechanicii, the Sigilite’s Anger and Deimos’s Cog, and at least three Metallica class Factory Ships which allow it to maintain base levels of self sufficiency in prolonged void operations. In addition the First Explorator Fleet was accompanied by the battle barge of the Ironsong Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes, a flotilla of the Imperial Navy lead by Admiral Ezekiel Bendavid from Terra’s Pride, and a collection of Deimosian Knight houses. 

This lecture on the First Deimos Explorator Fleet REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED and REDACTED REDACTED 

REDACTED REDACTED. Omnissiah bless and preserve you. 

<<<TRANSMISSION ENDS>>>

Well. That was most informative. Further search will be needed to determine how much of Magos-Historia Esther-Mendeelvee ∆12.56π's work is correct. Tracking the history and trail of the First Exploratory Fleet before it went to REDACTED will hopefully be less laborious if records are similarly kept. Unclear as of yet what audience Magos-Historia Esther was writing for, next avenue of investigation will be interrogating them tomorrow. Will be sending word to investigate Erophant III, which is located within the Imperium Nihilius. Reports of the fleet's activity have kept circling in from the Imperium Nihilius which does at least suggest they are still active. 

Praise the God-Emperor-Omnissiah

Inquisitor Seraph Seraphdottior signing off. 

[eternal-echoes]

So I ask: “Do you think that your past government experience can serve you in governing the universal church?” After a brief pause for reflection, Pope Francis becomes very serious, but also very serene, and he responds: “In my experience as superior in the Society, to be honest, I have not always behaved in that way—that is, I did not always do the necessary consultation. And this was not a good thing. My style of government as a Jesuit at the beginning had many faults. That was a difficult time for the Society: an entire generation of Jesuits had disappeared. Because of this I found myself provincial when I was still very young. I was only 36 years old. That was crazy. I had to deal with difficult situations, and I made my decisions abruptly and by myself. Yes, but I must add one thing: when I entrust something to someone, I totally trust that person. He or she must make a really big mistake before I rebuke that person. But despite this, eventually people get tired of authoritarianism. “My authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. I lived a time of great interior crisis when I was in Cordova. To be sure, I have never been like Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems. “I say these things from life experience and because I want to make clear what the dangers are. Over time I learned many things. The Lord has allowed this growth in knowledge of government through my faults and my sins. So as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I had a meeting with the six auxiliary bishops every two weeks, and several times a year with the council of priests. They asked questions and we opened the floor for discussion. This greatly helped me to make the best decisions. But now I hear some people tell me: ‘Do not consult too much, and decide by yourself.’ Instead, I believe that consultation is very important. “The consistories [of cardinals], the synods [of bishops] are, for example, important places to make real and active this consultation. We must, however, give them a less rigid form. I do not want token consultations, but real consultations. The consultation group of eight cardinals, this ‘outsider’ advisory group, is not only my decision, but it is the result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave. And I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation.”

-INTERVIEW WITH POPE FRANCIS by Fr Antonio Spadaro, August 19, 2013