09 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWould that be Peter II ?
The Vatican has bigger fish to fry these days (pun intended).
"Bingo after church!"
"All-you-can-eat Fish Fry, Friday Night, 7:00pm"
Watch for the white smoke.
My prediction, an Italian from Rome. Papal name: Peter
Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).
09 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsGood grammar and no spelling mistakes!!!!
Would that be Peter II ?
Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).
That must be cut and paste.
Quote your source like a good boy plagiarist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Peter_II
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut the one thing you miss is that this is the last Pope.
Would that be Peter II ?
Out of respect for the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope, no Pope has ever adopted the name Peter II. It is considered unlikely that any future pope would choose the name. Many popes have, however, had Peter (or a regional variant) as their baptismal name, most recently Pope Benedict XIII (Pietro Orsini).
10 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, and not evidence of a miracle, which it appears to be to the faithful. 😏
A fake relic, of course.
The Church did a robust business in these around the time of the first Crusades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
10 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI am as full of Faith as the mustard seed, and yet I have not made up my mind on whether the Shroud is a true relic or not.
Yes, and not evidence of a miracle, which it appears to be to the faithful. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
After all, Calvin once made a comment that a ship could be made from all the "pieces of the True Cross". I do get his point.
10 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOriginally posted by wolfgang59
Why? You did not have any trouble finding it, did you? 😏
Good grammar and no spelling mistakes!!!!
That must be cut and paste.
Quote your source like a good boy plagiarist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Peter_II
Its not a question of finding it.
Passing of the ideas of another as your own is plagiarism.
Bad form.
I guess when you are devoid of your own ideas it is all you are left with ... 😞
10 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneOK as Mr Hinds seems reluctant to get into this detail I'll discuss it with you.
A fake relic, of course.
The Church did a robust business in these around the time of the first Crusades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic
The point I'm trying to get our resident headbanger to engage with is that the only way this rag can be a "relic" is for it to actually have been wrapped around the body of Jesus Christ which is completely impossible to prove or disprove. At best the only thing that can be potentially proved or disproved is whether or not it was used to wrap a body and the image on it is from that body.
Let's assume we can prove is was used to wrap a body and that is the body's image, so what? It could be anyone of hundreds of millions of people. There is no controversy, no christian relic, no nothing. It is a non-interest item.