How would you react if the new Pope took the name Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chero23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Peter would, were he not Peter call’d,
Retain that dear infallibility which he owes
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Not with joy. Just a joke but I think it would be in extremely bad taste and I think someone would discourage the future Pope from making such a choice. Linus
Click to expand...
…Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius… any name but Peter :cool: jk
 
I would not be happy. Because it would fuel many anti-Catholics and, I think actual anti-Catholic violence would spike.

For that reason alone I seriously hope the ‘prophecy’ is debunked once and for all.

I would like a John XXIV, or a J-P-III. 😃
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Not with joy. Just a joke but I think it would be in extremely bad taste and I think someone would discourage the future Pope from making such a choice. Linus
Click to expand...
Maybe he would take the name Linus.

Probably, out of respect to the specialness of the name Peter, a future Pope wouldn’t take that name.

He may have a Pope that he would like to take as inspiration, but perhaps that name might be too hard for modern tongues to get around. In that case, he may think of another name. What ever name he takes, he will get my full respect and obedience.

The Lord assured us that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. He also warned us against trying to figure out when the end of the world will come. He said it would come like a thief in the night. So live each day in readiness, but don’t worry.
 
I don’t see the fuss or problem with it. While Peter was the first Pope tyhere us nothing that says there could not be others of the same name. Some here have said or insinuated that it would be disrespectful to use the name Peter. My question is why would it be disrespectful?

Now if he named himself Pope Jesus, or Pope Christ or something along those lines I would see a BIG problem. But Peter? :confused:
 
It never ceases to amaze me that some people actually put stock in these end of the world prophecies and scenarios, especialy when in scripture it says that** no one except the Father**, not even the angels in heaven know when it will happen. The fact that some person or persons may have had visions or mystical experiences really shouldn’t figure into it. Lets not forget that Satan is quite capable of producing visions and prophecies as well as God…
 
And for that reason, you know PR reasons, would be the reason that if the next man chosen, would refrain.

Not that I think that any man chosen as pope would take on the name of Peter. Not after 2000 years.
 
It would be a sign that the man is not led by the Holy Spirit.
I am surprised by some of the responses in this thread.
Such a profane thing would never be allowed.
 
Mike30 said:
I don’t see the fuss or problem with it. While Peter was the first Pope tyhere us nothing that says there could not be others of the same name. Some here have said or insinuated that it would be disrespectful to use the name Peter. My question is why would it be disrespectful?

Now if he named himself Pope Jesus, or Pope Christ or something along those lines I would see a BIG problem. But Peter? :confused:
Click to expand...
The only reason it would make me feel odd is that Peter did not chose than name. His name was Simon and Christ named him Peter. For someone to chose the name would just feel odd; kinda like they see themselves as the rock the church will be built on. Just seems to lack humility given how Simon Peter came about the name.
 
Melchior said:
Actually, I was thinking “that’s solid hubris, picking the name of the first Pope”.

That said, I don’t put stock into doomsayer prophecies about the end of the world. Thief in the night and all of that.
Click to expand...
No more hubris than naming your child Jesus, which is quite common in Spanish speaking countries.
 
They said the shroud of turin was a forgery as well, but nobody ever proved it to be so. When the french weave theory was proven a verifiable scientific fact all we were given as a reply was silence.

the scripture says nobody will know the day or the hour. NOT nobody will know the decade or the year or that it is in fact coming very close.

That having been said the evidence is not conclusive either way. I am not the authority or last word on it, but no one hear has attempted to make a rational argument other than conjecture for these prophesies being forgeries. More to the point some of them have been fairly accurate (amazingly accurate), the count has become a bit obscured (unless God goes by Peters count siting the power to bind and loose and all), and the prophesy does not directly predict the end of the world immediately and instantaneously. It predicts the last Pope which implies the end cannot be far after, but the “The End” of the prophesy does not fall (necessarily) at the end of the papacy. (this of course assumes it is not a forgery which has not been conclusively proven either)

bottom line God will not leave us orphaned. he will be with us until the end of the age. He did not promise the catholic church in america, england, or europe would continue till the end of time however. Every offical authority I know of is saying in fact that the church and these countries are either at odds now or quickly becoming at odds. This cannot end well no matter who is going to be the new Pope.

Lastly it does make a certain amount of sense that this new Pope might take the name of Peter in that his job now (according to the current Pope) will be much like that of the original. The church that is quickly coming will be much smaller. The church is now or soon will be forced out of many of her traditionally owned institutions (weather this is because of finance or persecution can in many cases be seen as the same thing). The simple fact is the world is scary out there. down right hostile to Catholics just now. Are there more hungry lions in our future? according to one cardinal his successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr. Seems like early roman days to me, but who am I to judge. Time will tell.

A last note every place I did look with a few notable exceptions about this prophesy all said that there is not necessarily a direct line between the last named pope and the end. that there may be a gap in there.
 
While I don’t put much stock in doomsday prophecies, I don’t think the failure of the apocalypse to manifest itself under the next Pope will necessarily do away with the tin foil hat crew.

The entry on Petrus Romanus is distinct from the others. Here is the text:

“In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.”

Even assuming (most and overly generously) that the prophecy is accurate, it says nothing about Peter the Roman coming directly after entry #111.

Out of curiosity, do we have other independent references to God or Christ as “the dreadful judge”?
 
some people seem far too eager for the apocalypse. Extremely poor taste.
 
down_under said:
They said the shroud of turin was a forgery as well, but nobody ever proved it to be so. When the french weave theory was proven a verifiable scientific fact all we were given as a reply was silence.

the scripture says nobody will know the day or the hour. NOT nobody will know the decade or the year or that it is in fact coming very close.

That having been said the evidence is not conclusive either way. I am not the authority or last word on it, but no one hear has attempted to make a rational argument other than conjecture for these prophesies being forgeries. More to the point some of them have been fairly accurate (amazingly accurate), the count has become a bit obscured (unless God goes by Peters count siting the power to bind and loose and all), and the prophesy does not directly predict the end of the world immediately and instantaneously. It predicts the last Pope which implies the end cannot be far after, but the “The End” of the prophesy does not fall (necessarily) at the end of the papacy. (this of course assumes it is not a forgery which has not been conclusively proven either)

bottom line God will not leave us orphaned. he will be with us until the end of the age. He did not promise the catholic church in america, england, or europe would continue till the end of time however. Every offical authority I know of is saying in fact that the church and these countries are either at odds now or quickly becoming at odds. This cannot end well no matter who is going to be the new Pope.

Lastly it does make a certain amount of sense that this new Pope might take the name of Peter in that his job now (according to the current Pope) will be much like that of the original. The church that is quickly coming will be much smaller. The church is now or soon will be forced out of many of her traditionally owned institutions (weather this is because of finance or persecution can in many cases be seen as the same thing). The simple fact is the world is scary out there. down right hostile to Catholics just now. Are there more hungry lions in our future? according to one cardinal his successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr. Seems like early roman days to me, but who am I to judge. Time will tell.

A last note every place I did look with a few notable exceptions about this prophesy all said that there is not necessarily a direct line between the last named pope and the end. that there may be a gap in there.
Click to expand...
I would hardly call them accurate beyond the first few years. There is approx 300 years between when they were published and when Malachi live. Clearly suspicious.

The alleged prophecies were first published by Benedictine monk in 1595. Wyon attributes the prophecies to Saint Malachi, the 12th‑century Irish Archbishop of Armagh.

AFA the shroud. At least that HAS been examined.
 
Marie5890 said:
I would hardly call them accurate beyond the first few years. There is approx 300 years between when they were published and when Malachi live. Clearly suspicious.

The alleged prophecies were first published by Benedictine monk in 1595. Wyon attributes the prophecies to Saint Malachi, the 12th‑century Irish Archbishop of Armagh.

AFA the shroud. At least that HAS been examined.
Click to expand...
I agree with all points. We don’t know even close to enough. We also don’t really know how to interpret the prophesy even if we assume its authenticity. Lots of reason to be only mildly pessimistic about the coming end of civilization.
Its not the end of ALL civilization its only the end of the catholic era that we have known.

P.S. Yes at least the shroud was examined. It only took 40 years or so for the detractors to admit that there is too much about the shroud that simply could not be explained, but lets not derail the thread over it. that was not my intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top