I am ignorant of the languages the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are written in, and have only a layman's understanding of the Scriptures, so I do not know the answer to this question.
Can anyone clarify for me, didn't Jesus actually change the name of Simon to Peter? Didn't the Apostles and disciples then refer to him as Peter? If Jesus didn't mean the man Simon when he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." then why did the Catholic community of the first century use that as his name? And then why did the disciples look to him as the ultimate authority after Pentecost? Why would Paul actually go to Rome to consult with Peter about the question whether Gentiles who entered the Church were to follow Mosaic law such as dietary restrictions and circumcision, unless it was understood by all Peter held final authority?
In addition, in salvation history, wasn't a change of name an indication of a new identity before God? God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. What was Simon's new identity, if not Vicar of Christ? After all, He did not change the names of John, or James, or Thomas, or any of the other Apostles.
If I am correct about the above, then I think some people are playing fast and loose with the known history because they have an agenda to destroy the Catholic Church, as Bishop Sheen said, to make an "ape of the Church" to replace the true Church.
“He [the devil] will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. In desperate need for God, whom he nevertheless refuses to adore, modern man in his loneliness and frustration will hunger more and more for membership in a community that will give him enlargement of purpose, but at the cost of losing himself in some vague collectivity.”
It’s beginning to appear that “strategists” in the Church have looked across the landscape and, seeing the number of failing denominations (Anglicans, e.g.) they sense an opportunity for ecumenical reconciliation. In business this is called a merger. And before Rome makes too many doctrinal concessions in order to achieve it it would do them well to recognize that in some mergers it is the minnow that swallows the whale.
You’re kidding, right? Sedevacantism is not a philosophy that can be declared heretical or schismatic. It’s knee-jerk weaponized language, like “right to choose” or “transphobe.” When somebody says the Chair is empty, that means that they are asserting that the claimant to it is an antipope. There have been multiple antipopes in the history of the Church. And the Church has always taught that a heretic claiming to be pope automatically incurs latae sententiae excommunication.
"The trajectory is no longer speculative. It’s active, embodied, and declared from the Chair of Peter, or what’s left of it.."
Don't use such bad terminology. The Chair of Peter stands stouter than ever, and always will. It is unassailable and perpetual, despite what lout might sit upon it.
In case you did not get the memo, since Vatican II all dogmas are now negotiating points as soon as the Satanists feel it is safe to take the masks off.
A heretic cannot sit on the Chair of Peter. If the “pope” is a pertinacious public heretic, the Chair is empty. Look up what Pope Innocent III had to say about it—it contradicts everything they teach on the subject in today’s modernist seminaries.
Rhetorically, I’d ask readers to consider whether it is theologically possible for true popes to nullify the authority delegated by Christ to Peter and reject infallible dogma. And if so, by what criterion could the Catholic Church credibly maintain its claim to divine foundation by Christ.
As Lefebvre said: Any reasonable man must ask himself whether such men have been real popes. Every day for 60 years, the evidence against it mounts.
I would suspect the next move is to revisit Romans 3:28 and thank Luther for his hard work. All non-Catholics will now call us 'brother' (or 'sister' if the strain of the day is too much to bear). We will have unity, finally. We will also be able to lower the cost of Bibles by only printing the King James version -- for which the new 'popey' will be gratefully thanked for.
I'm taking the phone off the hook and locking the doors now... (Thank God (or whoever is minding the phone Up There), I must be saved).
(Please forgive my sarcasm, but I'm starting to get angry...)
I remember someone mentioned smoke and then the Tiara being removed - that wasn't yesterday - sadly. I was just a thought back then between Philomena & Brendan. What have we done? Jesu Christe miserere nobis.
Probably “Roman” dogmas will be regarded as binding on Latin Catholics, but not on Eastern Catholics or on anyone else.
IOW: reality, and the truth of statements made about it, depend on where one is, and on who one is.
So: if one is a Latin-Rite Catholic, the 1870 definition of Papal infallibility is a truth revealed by God;
but, if one is a subject of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, the aforesaid definition is not true, and was certainly not revealed by God.
This idea makes God a liar, possibly a schizophrenic, and certainly a deceiver. Sorry, but ecumenism with a foundation of heresy and blasphemy is no option for a Christian.
The Martyrs of England and Wales - to name only 40 or so of them - could have avoided imprisonment, torture and death if Rome’s latest betrayal had been current doctrine in their times.
The Papacy is supremely, infinitely, unworthy of the sacrifices made by them, and by other Martyrs, such as St Josaphat of Polotsk & St Andrew Bobola. The Papacy disgraces and dishonours those who suffered for it. Such base treachery & ingratitude is unforgivable.
Yet more relativistic garbage from the "Throne" of Peter. If this document is correct, then the papacy has surrendered to relativism yet again. If the papacy gets to treat the first millennium as privileged, then it cannot complain when Anglicans treat the first four Ecumenical Councils as privileged, or when Protestant Biblicists treat the NT as privileged. Why privilege the first millennium ? Why this ridiculous pandering to the Greek Orthodox ? Why not include the Nestorians in the privileged period, and end that period, not at 1054 or 1000, but at 431 instead ? Rome's position is indefensible nonsense.
These constant stabs in the back by an ecumaniacal Rome are insupportable. Why should, and how can, we converts swear to accept the Catholic Faith in its entirety, when the Popes abuse their authority by teaching relativistic falsehoods ? When the Popes change the content of the Faith, they are guilty of fraud and corruption; and how can converts - or any other Catholics - have any obligation to keep a promise of which the terms have been changed ? This is Darth Vader Catholicism:
"Darth Vader: Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookiee to my ship.
Lando: You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision!
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Rather amusingly, there was a pope named Lando, in the early 10th century. Not so amusingly, Darth Vader, like the wizard Saruman, seems to have become a model for the "bishops of Rome". It seems appropriate that pope Ratzinger was compared to the Emperor Palpatine.
I suspect you are quite young. Maybe a recent convert or revert to the Catholic Church? Your triumphalism, if I may call it that, regarding the Roman Catholic Church is based on a myopic view.
I am glad to have learned from you this most recent information about what is happening under Pope Leo regarding efforts to see how the eastern and western lungs of Christ's Church can be reunited. Yet I strongly disagree with your perspective on it. We need to be working hard for unity, and it will not be the triumphalist, hyperpapalist view that you seem to prefer.
I am ignorant of the languages the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are written in, and have only a layman's understanding of the Scriptures, so I do not know the answer to this question.
Can anyone clarify for me, didn't Jesus actually change the name of Simon to Peter? Didn't the Apostles and disciples then refer to him as Peter? If Jesus didn't mean the man Simon when he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." then why did the Catholic community of the first century use that as his name? And then why did the disciples look to him as the ultimate authority after Pentecost? Why would Paul actually go to Rome to consult with Peter about the question whether Gentiles who entered the Church were to follow Mosaic law such as dietary restrictions and circumcision, unless it was understood by all Peter held final authority?
In addition, in salvation history, wasn't a change of name an indication of a new identity before God? God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. What was Simon's new identity, if not Vicar of Christ? After all, He did not change the names of John, or James, or Thomas, or any of the other Apostles.
If I am correct about the above, then I think some people are playing fast and loose with the known history because they have an agenda to destroy the Catholic Church, as Bishop Sheen said, to make an "ape of the Church" to replace the true Church.
“He [the devil] will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. In desperate need for God, whom he nevertheless refuses to adore, modern man in his loneliness and frustration will hunger more and more for membership in a community that will give him enlargement of purpose, but at the cost of losing himself in some vague collectivity.”
You got it right!!
Satan infiltrated Vatican in 1958.
Satan took-over Ape-Church's Papal Office through Possession, and Vatican II was the public announcement.
The acceptance of all those Heresies should have made it clear.
It’s beginning to appear that “strategists” in the Church have looked across the landscape and, seeing the number of failing denominations (Anglicans, e.g.) they sense an opportunity for ecumenical reconciliation. In business this is called a merger. And before Rome makes too many doctrinal concessions in order to achieve it it would do them well to recognize that in some mergers it is the minnow that swallows the whale.
The merger model fails to address the crux of the issue—what’s really going on is erecting and consolidating a counterfeit Church.
Sedevacantis making sense
Heretic and schismatic
You’re kidding, right? Sedevacantism is not a philosophy that can be declared heretical or schismatic. It’s knee-jerk weaponized language, like “right to choose” or “transphobe.” When somebody says the Chair is empty, that means that they are asserting that the claimant to it is an antipope. There have been multiple antipopes in the history of the Church. And the Church has always taught that a heretic claiming to be pope automatically incurs latae sententiae excommunication.
It is the way we practiced Catholicism for 2000 yrs .
Why has the population who were Catholics falling away since 1962?
We are losing more and more Catholics. God help us. Bergoglio interpreted Gods word is heretic and schismatic .
"The trajectory is no longer speculative. It’s active, embodied, and declared from the Chair of Peter, or what’s left of it.."
Don't use such bad terminology. The Chair of Peter stands stouter than ever, and always will. It is unassailable and perpetual, despite what lout might sit upon it.
In case you did not get the memo, since Vatican II all dogmas are now negotiating points as soon as the Satanists feel it is safe to take the masks off.
Well, because of Modernist Popes since 1958 have been Sedeprivationist, the Holy Ghost has not Settled on The Chair of Peter since then.
Grave sinners cannot join in Papal Union with The Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost's Papal Union has rested for moments throughout The Body of Jesus Christ on Earth since 1958.
You hadn't felt Him?
A heretic cannot sit on the Chair of Peter. If the “pope” is a pertinacious public heretic, the Chair is empty. Look up what Pope Innocent III had to say about it—it contradicts everything they teach on the subject in today’s modernist seminaries.
I tend to think Pope Provost is an antipope. Be he pope or not, he must certainly convert.
Great article.
Rhetorically, I’d ask readers to consider whether it is theologically possible for true popes to nullify the authority delegated by Christ to Peter and reject infallible dogma. And if so, by what criterion could the Catholic Church credibly maintain its claim to divine foundation by Christ.
As Lefebvre said: Any reasonable man must ask himself whether such men have been real popes. Every day for 60 years, the evidence against it mounts.
I would suspect the next move is to revisit Romans 3:28 and thank Luther for his hard work. All non-Catholics will now call us 'brother' (or 'sister' if the strain of the day is too much to bear). We will have unity, finally. We will also be able to lower the cost of Bibles by only printing the King James version -- for which the new 'popey' will be gratefully thanked for.
I'm taking the phone off the hook and locking the doors now... (Thank God (or whoever is minding the phone Up There), I must be saved).
(Please forgive my sarcasm, but I'm starting to get angry...)
I remember someone mentioned smoke and then the Tiara being removed - that wasn't yesterday - sadly. I was just a thought back then between Philomena & Brendan. What have we done? Jesu Christe miserere nobis.
St Pius X oro pro nobis
Will we now regard Papal declarations of dogma, such as Mary’s assumption as take it or leave it?
Probably “Roman” dogmas will be regarded as binding on Latin Catholics, but not on Eastern Catholics or on anyone else.
IOW: reality, and the truth of statements made about it, depend on where one is, and on who one is.
So: if one is a Latin-Rite Catholic, the 1870 definition of Papal infallibility is a truth revealed by God;
but, if one is a subject of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, the aforesaid definition is not true, and was certainly not revealed by God.
This idea makes God a liar, possibly a schizophrenic, and certainly a deceiver. Sorry, but ecumenism with a foundation of heresy and blasphemy is no option for a Christian.
Well, because of Modernist Popes since 1958 have been Sedeprivationist, the Holy Ghost has not Settled on The Chair of Peter since then.
Grave sinners cannot join in Papal Union with The Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost's Papal Union has rested for moments throughout The Body of Jesus Christ on Earth since 1958.
You hadn't felt Him?
The Martyrs of England and Wales - to name only 40 or so of them - could have avoided imprisonment, torture and death if Rome’s latest betrayal had been current doctrine in their times.
The Papacy is supremely, infinitely, unworthy of the sacrifices made by them, and by other Martyrs, such as St Josaphat of Polotsk & St Andrew Bobola. The Papacy disgraces and dishonours those who suffered for it. Such base treachery & ingratitude is unforgivable.
Yet more relativistic garbage from the "Throne" of Peter. If this document is correct, then the papacy has surrendered to relativism yet again. If the papacy gets to treat the first millennium as privileged, then it cannot complain when Anglicans treat the first four Ecumenical Councils as privileged, or when Protestant Biblicists treat the NT as privileged. Why privilege the first millennium ? Why this ridiculous pandering to the Greek Orthodox ? Why not include the Nestorians in the privileged period, and end that period, not at 1054 or 1000, but at 431 instead ? Rome's position is indefensible nonsense.
These constant stabs in the back by an ecumaniacal Rome are insupportable. Why should, and how can, we converts swear to accept the Catholic Faith in its entirety, when the Popes abuse their authority by teaching relativistic falsehoods ? When the Popes change the content of the Faith, they are guilty of fraud and corruption; and how can converts - or any other Catholics - have any obligation to keep a promise of which the terms have been changed ? This is Darth Vader Catholicism:
"Darth Vader: Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookiee to my ship.
Lando: You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision!
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Rather amusingly, there was a pope named Lando, in the early 10th century. Not so amusingly, Darth Vader, like the wizard Saruman, seems to have become a model for the "bishops of Rome". It seems appropriate that pope Ratzinger was compared to the Emperor Palpatine.
The Church is in a state of Sedevacante
I suspect you are quite young. Maybe a recent convert or revert to the Catholic Church? Your triumphalism, if I may call it that, regarding the Roman Catholic Church is based on a myopic view.
I am glad to have learned from you this most recent information about what is happening under Pope Leo regarding efforts to see how the eastern and western lungs of Christ's Church can be reunited. Yet I strongly disagree with your perspective on it. We need to be working hard for unity, and it will not be the triumphalist, hyperpapalist view that you seem to prefer.
"Among the most disturbing elements of the 2024 Vatican document is its willingness to question whether Peter is even the rock of Matthew 16."
Which document is this? I need sources.
One post after another avoiding the obvious conclusion. So tiresome.
Strange to see how the Fathers looked to Rome and assented to Romes guidance in a publication that is strictly about criticizing Rome.