The skull of Charlemagne is kept in a bust in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Aachen in West Germany.
Charlemagne (/ˈʃɑːrlᵻmeɪn/; 2 April 742/747/748 – 28 January 814), also known as Charles the Great (Latin: Carolus or Karolus Magnus) or Charles I, was King of the Franks. He united most of Western Europe during the early Middle Ages and laid the foundations for modern France and Germany.
Part of Charlemagne’s skull is kept in this ornate bust at the Cathedral of Aachen in West Germany. The Cathedral Treasury in Aachen is regarded as one of the most important ecclesiastical treasuries in northern Europe. Pilgrims are able to see some of the relics every seven years when they are displayed.
He took the Frankish throne in 768 and became King of Italy from 774. From 800, he became the first Holy Roman Emperor — the first recognized emperor in Western Europe since the fall of the Western Roman Empire three centuries earlier. While Charlemagne already ruled his kingdom without the help of the Pope, recognition from the pontiff granted him divine legitimacy in the eyes of his contemporaries.
The Shrine of St. Mary rests in the choir of the church and dates from 1220-1239. Adorned with the figures of Christ, Mary, Charlemagne, Pope Leo III and the Twelve Apostles, the shrine contains the four great Aachen relics: St. Mary’s cloak, Christ’s swaddling clothes, St. John the Baptist’s beheading cloth and Christ’s loincloth.
Charlemagne himself was accorded sainthood inside the Holy Roman Empire after the twelfth century. His canonisation by Antipope Paschal III, to gain the favour of Frederick Barbarossa in 1165, was never recognised by the Holy See, which annulled all of Paschal’s ordinances at the Third Lateran Council in 1179. His name does not appear among the 28 saints named Charles who are listed in the Roman Martyrology. However, his beatification has been acknowledged as cultus confirmed and is celebrated on 28 January.
The bones of Charlemagne was discovered in his coffin. That may seem obvious, but given how often he was exhumed and reburied and parts of him given away as relics.
First three more photos:
Why hunt for the skull and bones of an ancient ruler of central Europe?
The bones are required in the process of canonization. A Roman Catholic bishop has to examine them, and give a report to the Pope. Charlemagne was helping the Pope to create the cult of relics. Ironically the Holy Roman emperor became a relic him self.
The Antipope Paschal III canonized Charlemagne, and the Holy Roman emperor has been accepted for beatification by the Bishop of Rome. This is only one step from being declared a “saint”.
Charlemagne ruled with the blessings of the Pope in his time, Pope Leo III. When the Pope was forced to leave Rome because of a public revolt, the emperor brought the papacy back to the “capital of the Holy Roman empire”. By coming to the rescue of the pope, Charlemagne was conceded to be the successor of the Roman Emperor. His empire lasted 1.000 years, and was consider by Hitler as the second reich.
For all evangelical Christians, the rule of Charlemagne is a proof of the papacy being the successor of Ceasar, having its origin in paganism. The “Holy see” is not at all based on an apostolic succession of the apostles of Jesus the Messiah.
In 800 A.D, the alliance between Charlemagne and the papacy was the beginning of the end of Celtic Christianity. The celts were ruling i the Brittanic kingdom of Normandie, in parts of the Irish peninsula and ancient Scotland. These Christians followed the Jewish calendar, celebrated the Biblical feasts, and refused to bow before the papacy.
The priests of Charlemagne removed the Celts from offices in central Europe. The onslaught of the Viking norsemen weakened the Celtic Church on the islands in the West. After a war that lasted 100 years, the Roman Catholic Church had replaced Biblical Christianity in the courts of all kings. The true Messianic faith continued as a badly bruised and persecuted Church of the people. Faithful Christians were a part of an underground movement for 400 years, up till the days of the protestant reformation. The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church of Jesus, despite endless pogroms and Roman Catholic inquisitions.
Written by Ivar
Wonderful resume of historic church apostolic church. To wipe out all traces of the true church they came up with phoney bible MSS such as Siniaticus and Jeromes Latin version. These MSS were rejected by the majority Protestant-apostolic churches throughout Europe and UK.
Ivar, thank you – this is very instructive and important.
About so-called apostolic succession, here is something you can find online,
“Despite being warned against ‘genealogies’ in Titus 3:9, the Roman Catholic ‘church’ puts forward the claim that their priests are ordained by bishops who were consecrated by bishops in a line that stretches all the way back to Peter and the Apostles. A similar claim is also made by the Orthodox ‘churches’ as well as Anglicans and several Protestant churches.
“Scipione Cardinal Rebiba
“However, an interesting fact arises in the Roman Catholic apostolic succession. Over 95% of modern Roman Catholic bishops, including the current pope, can trace their apostolic succession only as far as the 16th century, to a cardinal named Scipione Rebiba…”
Here is the link:
I’ve vetted it at the RRC site they gave.
Lord bless you!
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
The RCC stand on two pillars. If one of them fall, the Church is exposed to be false. One is the claimed physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The other is claimed Apostolic sucession back to Peter the Apostle.
Lets leave the Eucharist for another debate.
The Roman Catholic Church was formed in 320 A.D. Before this, there was no Pope. How can the pope be a sucessor, of an apostle who lived 300 years earlier?
Before the RCC was formed, there existed a Coptic Church in Egypt. An Assyrian Church of the East (with its synod in todays Iraq), and a Thomas Church in India. Non of them knew a Pope in Rome. None of them claimed Peter to be a supreme “super apostle”, and the head of the global Church.
These new ideas came from the emperor of Rome.
How could the Emperor in the Italian city of Rome, claim that the seat of Biblical Christianty had been shifted from Jerusalem to his imperial courts?
Those who believe in such a narrative to history, must show me scriptures. Coming forth with a phamplet of information produced in the Vatican, is wortless.
I love how well you explain things.
Please join and let us discuss about our LORD AND SAVIOR.
The papacy is False.. i agree …
[How could the Emperor in the Italian city of Rome, claim that the seat of Biblical Christianty had been shifted from Jerusalem to his imperial courts?]
But the seat of the Church of God in Jesus Christ was never Jerusalem. Physical locations have no significance in true Christianity, whether Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, or anywhere else. For the God we worship is Omnipresent, in every place throughout the earth and the universe, and he is worshiped in spirit and in truth, and not in physical buildings or locations. To claim Jerusalem as the seat of Christianity is dubious.
[21“Woman,”d Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.]
It is true that the documents got lost. However read Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, THREE at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. Here we have three. That is 1:3
If you work it out mathematical in the 16 century the odds would have been 1:512 billion having 3 invalid Bishops ordaining only one Bishop if the ratio was 1:20 in the 3rd century.
The onus is on you to prove that all 3 Bishops were not valid.
Further there is a possible of about 6 Bishops who could have ordained
Cardinal Rebiba in the area.
No space here to add more but you can Google this further for a much more indepth discussion. This was just another cheap attempt to slander the Catholic Church.
After all Jesus said He will never leave His Church.
I took this as far as I wish to right now, that is, to the Catholic website for the Catholic Hierarchy, where I spent a lot of time tracing apostolic succession of bishops in the larger dioceses, such as Philadelphia and New York, back to Cardinal Rebiba without getting any further back than he. Why did the Lord choose not to preserve the records you say were lost, if they are so crucial?
But apostolic succession is probably the least of my concerns with Catholicism, and as for canon law, it is not something I know well, even as a former Catholic. Canon Law is afterall the tradition of men, which the Apostle Paul described this way in his letter to the Colossians, chapter 2:
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
The Lord Jesus Christ answered the religious leaders of His day this way, in Matthew 15:
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
In many ways Catholicism transgresses God’s commandment to keep their traditions. This is obvious for those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. May the Lord open your eyes!
Shalom, and love in Jesus.
Blessings to you.
Yes, there are many issues with Catholicism. Cannon law, dogmas, etc. But apostolic sucession is one of the two pilars, on which the RCC stand. And eventually will fall.
The Pope claim to be “Holy Father” based on his petrine authority, supposed to have been given by Peter the apostle to his sucessor. The Pope claim that Peter was the head of the apostles, who held the key to the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefor the Pope holds the same key today. And the man who hold the key, is supposed to be the head of the global church.
If Peter was not the head of the apostles, the papal claim is worthless. The claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church is based on religious fraud.
It is easy to prove that the Pope is a fraud. There is not a single scripture that appoints Peter as the head of the Church. Nothing can be found in the letters of Paul, neither in the book of Acts, nor in the two letters of Peter. It is simply not there.
The Coptic Church has a similar problem as Rome. The Copts have a Pope too, who claim apostolic sucession back to Yacob, the brother of Jesus (The apostles James, in english translations).
Second, please use common sense. The apostles travelled in different directions, to the end of the Earth. All of them had a supreme apostolic anointing, and were guided by the Holy Spirit. Pauls says it in plain words. He was not ordained by men, but by Jesus Him self, after the Messiah had departed for heaven. Paul never met the physicall Jesus. Later he met Peter, and even exposed him as a hypocrite. All of them were mortal men, not “holy fathers”.
Paul, an apostle – sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead – and all the brothers and sisters with me, To the churches in Galatia: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, .
Ivar, yes, this is truth – thank you!
Shalom and love in Jesus.
When we debate the validity of the a claim of apostolic succession, the RCC clergy come up with this verse in their defense.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
(end of scriptures).
In the English translation, the Hebrew and Greek semantics are lost out. The sentense do not make sense. You simply do not say to a person: “You are Peter, John, Charles, or whatever”. There is no need to state the obvious. What Jesus did, was to make a semantic point. “Peter, you are a small stone, “petrus” (small stone). Peters name litteraly means “small stone”. And on this PETRA (rock in english translation), I (The Messiah) will build MY Church.
Jesus points out the difference between Peter and Him self. There is only one rock of the Church, and our salvation. And this rock is the Messiah. Not Peter.
Ivar, yes, and 1 Corinthians 10 confirms this:
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Yes, agreed! I was just giving you proof from the Roman Catholic Church that apostolic succession can’t be demonstrated in an unbroken line further back than the 16th century. I was just supporting you. Their so-called church is founded upon lies in order to enslave people to their system.
God bless you and shalom, Ivar!
God bless you too, and Shalom!.
Reblogged this on "SNIFFING OUT THE LIES OF THE PARASITIC ELITE AND DIGGING UP BONES ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER" NEGDOG.COM 18+up Some material may bot be suitable for children or minors!.
Armorrcc, it’s not even as complicated as the chicken or the egg conundrum, the RCC just declared themselves the apostolic successors.
🙂 The real Biblical question is: what came first, the Church or the Bible as you know it?
Shalom and love in Jesus.
The real question is: What came first, the Church or that Bible as you know it?
This is an irrelevant question to the topic of apostolic sucession. The idea that the Bishop of Rome has a direct linear apostolic authority from the ancient apostle Peter. That Peter would support such a claim.
Nevertheless, I will answer the question.
The Hebrew Bible is 3.000 years old. Jesus the Messiah came to Earth, exactely as it was written down by the prophets of God.
A man is saved, by believing what is written in the Word of God. The Holy Spirit will convince you in your soul, that you have found the truth. Jesus is the Truth.
The Church is based on Truth, or it is no church. The true Church is a gathering of people who believe in what was written. The New Testament is a confirmation of what was already known. The New Testament is a confirmation of the Hebrew Bible.
The phrase “It is written” comes 98 times in the New King James edition. The book of acts is a continuation of the Jewish faith, now with the Messiah known to all who is willing to open their hearts. Surley not all are willing.
‘It is written,’ he said to them, ‘“My house will be a house of prayer”; but you have made it “a den of robbers”
The church started before anything was written down, otherwise they would have had nothing to write down. John the apostle was kept alive to write things down.
John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
I agree. God Bless.
The church is still older since it would have begun at least by the promise to Abraham if not at creation; Long before anything was written down by Moses.