Wasn't Peter Married?

[Sean_O_L]

Since 1950 there have been some seventeen alleged Papal Claimants in addition to those who have been validly and licitly elected to the See of Peter - Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II. Furthermore, there appears to be three waiting in the wings…

The following anti-popes were recorded at homestead.com/claimants/names.html
(I say “were” because the webmaster, Robert Hess, who has been a sedevacantist, contacted me advising that he has reconciled with Rome and closed his site.Glory be to God.)

1. Michael Collin, Clement XV, 1950.
2. Gaston Tremblay, Gregory XVII, 1968.
3. Unknown, Lorenes, 1974 ( * ).
4. Chester Olszewski, Chriszekial Elias in 1977, then Peter II in 1980.
5. Clemente Dominguez Gomez, Gregory XVII, 1978.
6. Unknown, Peter Athanasius II, 1984.
7. Pierre Henri Bubois, Peter II, date unknown.
8. Francis Konrad Schuckardt, Hadrian VII, 1984.
9. David Bawden, Michael I, 1990.
10. Fr. Valeriano Vestini, O.F.M. Cap., Valeriano I, 1990.
11. Timothy Blasio Ahitler, 1991. Deceased.
12. Fr. Victor Von Pentz, Linus II, 1994.
13. Maurice Achieri, Peter II, 1995.
14. Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M., Cap. Pius XIII, 1998.
15. Bishop (Thsung) Zhong Huai-de (Joseph). Pius XIV. 1998. Died in 2002.
16. Julius Tischler, Peter II, date unknown.
17. Reinaldus Michael Benjamins, (Brother Raymond of the Trinity.) Gregory XIX, 2001.

Upcoming claimants (source: homestead.com/claimants/names.html ) are:

1. Visionary William Kamm, also known as “The Little Pebble,” intends to “become pope” the minute John Paul II dies.
2. St. Jovite, Quebec, Canada: A “female pope” is alleged to already reside at St. Jovite. She will take over when Gregory XVII dies…
3. Orrin, North Dakota, U.S.A.: Gary McLaughlin, also known as “Fr. X,” is alleged to be “the future pontiff.”

I know the details of the alleged “6. Unknown, Peter Athanasius II, 1984.” - for I know him and have spoken with him personally by phone on about 6-8 occasions.

As for “14. Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M., Cap. Pius XIII, 1998.” - He is a Franciscan priest who was stationed for a long time in Japan and then also in Australia.

Here is a true (but sad) story:-

About 25 years ago my wife and I commenced attended the Tridentine Latin Mass in the home of Yves du Pont, a Frenchman, living in Hawthorn, Melbourne, Australia. Yves was the Editor of the periodical “World Trends”.

Another man and his wife and four children also attended. They lived in Geelong, about 45 miles from Melbourne. There he worked in the Victorian Railways Ticket Office. His and my family became quite friendly, sharing a common interest in the Latin Mass. However, he became obsessed by the writings of the sedevacantists, Patrick Henry Omlor, Hutton Gibson (Mel’s father) and “Veritas” from Louisville, KY., and we gradually drifted in opposite directions.

Four to five years ago I came across the website “True Catholic” (naturally!!!), which announced the good news that Pope Pius XIII had been elected in conclave as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. This took my attention - and I investigated further. Said “Pope Pius XIII” was, in fact, a disaffected Franciscan, Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher, O.F.M., brother of Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, O.F.M. who has been an adherent to the schismatic and excommunicated Society of St Pius X (SSPX). Fr. Lucien had been a missionary, mostly in Japan, and later in Australia, where he and my Geelong friend met.

 

[Sean_O_L]

After some time, Fr. Lucien and a few of his adherents, after becoming convinced that the Vatican II popes (including Pope John Paul II) were heretics and, therefore, not Catholics and NOT Popes at all, decided that the Church needed to be saved - that they were just the ones to do the saving!!! Without any authority, Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher created my friend and a couple of others (who I think have expired their time on earth) Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, and these “Cardinals” proceeded to hold a “conclave” to elect a “true” Pope in about Oct. 1998. Naturally, the only one to offer himself for the position was Fr. Lucien - who was duly elected. And the bells rang out throughout the world: “Habemus papem” - “We have a pope”. Perhaps they didn’t ring in your part of the world? Never mind, his website declared the GOOD NEWS.

Naturally enough, there was great rejoicing and back-slapping in the camp of Pope Pius XIII. After a suitably short time, on June 13, 1999, Pope Pius XIII ordained to the priesthood my friend and any other Cardinals in the vicinity. In even shorter time, he consecrated them Bishops - in both cases, using the proper (old-rite) Ordination ceremony and Roman Pontifical. As a grateful quid pro quo, on July 4, 1999, the Cardinals then elevated Pope Pius XIII (still Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher) to the position of Bishop.
And so it is that my long lost friend became Gordon Cardinal Bateman, papal Secretary to Pope Pius XIII, now gloriously reigning in cloud-cookoo land!!!

Footnote: If I had only stuck with Gordon, I might now be John Cardinal Loughnan - and potential claimant to the throne of Pope Pius XIII (upon his demise, of course!)

As with all schismatics, “Pius XIII” and “Cardinal” Bateman fell apart at the seams - Bateman declaring that “Pius XIII” was not in fact a “true” Pope; Pulvermacher responded by sacking Bateman. Gordy is presently tilting at windmills in trying to organize a Conclave from all the so-called “trads” in order to elect a Pope of their choosing!!!

As for Rob - I am sure that he is a genuine person, a good Christian and convinced in his profession. I simply point out that he is NOT a Catholic priest, but is approximately equivalent to a mixture of “ecclesial groups” who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church - with which I hope he reconciles in the fullness of time.

 

[BulldogCath]

Sean

Very Very Interesting. Now that is not Traditional at all-that even blows SSPX out of the water. To think that you can decide to be Pope is short of insane. I can understand Traditionals being upset with the situation, but to go and elect a Pope of their own is a little bit out of norm. I have read some of the sede literature that has “circulated” among various catholic chats-some of it can make sense-but the whole thing is a mess right now.

I wonder why, in all of the infinite wisdom that the church has had over the past 2000 years, has it reached out to all of these other faiths, many of which actually deny Christ-but go out of their way to excommunicate and ban the TLM and anything that has to do with the church past like they are ashamed.

I listen to my Uncle and in-laws who are SSPX and SSPV attendees, and they feel that the church as it stands today wants no part of them. That they have made it clear that those that belive in the past teachings, they thought after V2 they would just die off and that would be the end of it. But that has not happened and the church just does not want to deal with the entire group of Conservative and Trad catholics and feel they have a better shot of bringing back the Protestants and the Schismatic Orthodox and just tell the Trads to take a hike. So there is bitterness and maybe that is the reason for a Pope Pius XIII.

Just a hunch .
Sean O L:

After some time, Fr. Lucien and a few of his adherents, after becoming convinced that the Vatican II popes (including Pope John Paul II) were heretics and, therefore, not Catholics and NOT Popes at all, decided that the Church needed to be saved - that they were just the ones to do the saving!!! Without any authority, Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher created my friend and a couple of others (who I think have expired their time on earth) Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, and these “Cardinals” proceeded to hold a “conclave” to elect a “true” Pope in about Oct. 1998. Naturally, the only one to offer himself for the position was Fr. Lucien - who was duly elected. And the bells rang out throughout the world: “Habemus papem” - “We have a pope”. Perhaps they didn’t ring in your part of the world? Never mind, his website declared the GOOD NEWS.

Naturally enough, there was great rejoicing and back-slapping in the camp of Pope Pius XIII. After a suitably short time, on June 13, 1999, Pope Pius XIII ordained to the priesthood my friend and any other Cardinals in the vicinity. In even shorter time, he consecrated them Bishops - in both cases, using the proper (old-rite) Ordination ceremony and Roman Pontifical. As a grateful quid pro quo, on July 4, 1999, the Cardinals then elevated Pope Pius XIII (still Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher) to the position of Bishop.
And so it is that my long lost friend became Gordon Cardinal Bateman, papal Secretary to Pope Pius XIII, now gloriously reigning in cloud-cookoo land!!!

Footnote: If I had only stuck with Gordon, I might now be John Cardinal Loughnan - and potential claimant to the throne of Pope Pius XIII (upon his demise, of course!)

As with all schismatics, “Pius XIII” and “Cardinal” Bateman fell apart at the seams - Bateman declaring that “Pius XIII” was not in fact a “true” Pope; Pulvermacher responded by sacking Bateman. Gordy is presently tilting at windmills in trying to organize a Conclave from all the so-called “trads” in order to elect a Pope of their choosing!!!

As for Rob - I am sure that he is a genuine person, a good Christian and convinced in his profession. I simply point out that he is NOT a Catholic priest, but is approximately equivalent to a mixture of “ecclesial groups” who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church - with which I hope he reconciles in the fullness of time.

 

[FrRobSST]

Sean O L:

BullDogCath wrote:
Rob does not even appear to know much of the history of the ensuing schismatic groups which have evolved from Duarte Costa.

Actually, I know quite a lot about the different groups that evolved from the Duarte Costa line, and I want very little to do with them. Most of them are rank heretics.

However, his main claim appears to be from the Episcopalians (Church of Endland (whose orders were never recognized by Rome.

That would be incorrect. I was ordained by an Old Catholic bishop, and when he resigned due to health reasons I found myself willed to a traditional Anglican bishop for several years (the PEC). Per the Canons of the PEC, the parish I was associated with voted to withdraw from the PEC (thus, no schism) when the Bishop announced his intentions to leave the country for an extended period of time without providing episcopal oversight for confirmations and pastoral oversight. At that time, the parish came under the protection of an Old Catholic bishop. However when my schedule at the hospital became more hectic, the parish was closed and the people went to other parishes. I was asked to take part-time pastoral respoinsibility for another parish, and have been doing that for a few years now. If you visited the St. Alban’s site, well, it’s out of date and in spite of AOL’s promises at the time, they never deleted the site when I dropped my AOL account.

I’ll take a brief moment to note that I am not here to sheep steal or otherwise detract from the Roman Catholic Church. I am here because every time I venture to generic ‘religious’ message boards Protestants attack me for being Catholic, so I thought I would come here and try to spend some time among other Catholics (even if you refuse to share the name with me).

I have not come here to misrepresent myself, to try to convert you, or to preach at you - though I will share my experience when it differs from yours because I believe you have a right to know where I come from on things.

If you would prefer that I leave, I’ll unsubscribe from this site.

Rob+

 

[PioMagnus]

You are welcome here…we take anyone who wishes to come…as long as they are respectful, which you seem to be.

We might not agree, but we can still learn from each other.

 

[big_guy144]

gardenswithkids:

Yes he was married, but he might have been a widower by the time he left his nets to follow Jesus.

The Bible refers to Peter’s mother-in-law, but his wife is not anywhere in the account of her mother’s healing. In fact, Peter’s mother-in-law proceeds to wait them right after she was healed. Now if my mom had just been ill, healed or not, I’d be the one waiting on Jesus and his disciples.

Some protestants point out the reference to Peter being married as “proof” that he wasn’t Pope. It proves no such thing, but sometimes catches ignorant Catholics by surprise to see the Bible reference to his mother-in-law… Married or widowed, Peter was Pope, and our current Pope is Peter’s successor.

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord. No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1COR 3:11.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16:16-18.

“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

 

[big_guy144]

big_guy144:

No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

Correction: No man can be Christ’s substitute, only can be a follower. And yes, men can be an anti-christ , meaning he is against Christ, but no man can be in place of Christ.

 

[big_guy144]

big_guy144:

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord. No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1COR 3:11.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16:16-18.

“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

Also, a small note to clear up that Jesus was refering to himself, the Christ as the rock upon which the church would be built…

“He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith uno him, We have found the** Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ**. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpreted, A stone.” John 1:41-42

“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

 

[adstrinity]

big_guy144:

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord. No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1COR 3:11.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16:16-18.

“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

Ballocks JPII wasn’t Peter’s successor!!!

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[Sean_O_L]

FrRobSST wrote:

Actually, I know quite a lot about the different groups that evolved from the Duarte Costa line, and I want very little to do with them. Most of them are rank heretics

Well, I will take your word for it; it appeared to the contrary when you wrote:

Bishop Salamo Ferraz of Brazil was a part of the National Catholic and Apostolic Church of Brazil

My understanding is that Bishop Duarte-Costa founded the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Braziliera (ICAB) on July 6, 1945. In English, that would be the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil (or The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church).Can you tell us who was the Bishop in your line who was consecrated by Bishop Salomao Ferraz? And when that occurred.

Quote:
However, his main claim appears to be from the Episcopalians (Church of Endland (whose orders were never recognized by Rome.

That would be incorrect. I was ordained by an Old Catholic bishop, and when he resigned due to health reasons I found myself willed to a traditional Anglican bishop for several years (the PEC).

The Old Catholics are “another” thing again. “Willed” (like a chattle" to an Anglican? Obviously, you believed that his “Orders” were valid; but, on the face of things, Catholics do not so believe. But, you know this.

I am not here to sheep steal or otherwise detract from the Roman eneric ‘religious’ message boards Protestants attack me for being Catholic, so I thought I would come here and try to spend some time among other Catholics (even if you refuse to share the name with me).

I have already acknowledged and stated that you do not profess to be a Catholic priest in union with Rome. I have no problems in believing that you are a Christian in good faith. However, it became obvious that your status was NOT clear to someone else.

If you would prefer that I leave, I’ll unsubscribe from this site.

Hey! It is (or was R.I.P. John Paul II) a part of the pope’s job description to dialogue with all within and without visible communion with Rome with the object of attempting to do what Christ wanted. It is also my/our duty as well. So - please do not unsubscribe, and forgive my bluntness (it comes with my 70 years).

 

[Sean_O_L]

BullDogCath wrote:

Very Very Interesting. Now that is not Traditional at all-that even blows SSPX out of the water. To think that you can decide to be Pope is short of insane. I can understand Traditionals being upset with the situation, but to go and elect a Pope of their own is a little bit out of norm. I have read some of the sede literature that has “circulated” among various catholic chats-some of it can make sense-but the whole thing is a mess right now.

Well, it is certainly not “Traditional” - but is is VERY “traditional”! There IS a difference between the two. The second is along typical protestant lines. To follow that path becomes very easy when one “decides” that one knows better than the pope.

I wonder why, in all of the infinite wisdom that the church has had over the past 2000 years, has it reached out to all of these other faiths, many of which actually deny Christ-but go out of their way to excommunicate and ban the TLM and anything that has to do with the church past like they are ashamed.

The Church IS a hospital for the sick (sinners) and not a home for saints! She can mother or nurse the sick, advising them as to how they should behave to heal the sicknesses - but, as you would know if you have children - many will “do their own thing” anyway simply because that have the freedom to do so.

However, the Church has NOT “banned” the TLM, BullDogCath! In Her wisdom (but Christ did not promise Her wisdom, did He?) She has decided that the Liturgy for the Roman Rite is to be said in a new way - still maintaining the essence of the Sacrament; still maintaining the Sacrifice; still employing the same High Priest - Our Lord Jesus Christ - who is the same Victim.

I listen to my Uncle and in-laws who are SSPX and SSPV attendees, and they feel that the church as it stands today wants no part of them. That they have made it clear that those that belive in the past teachings, they thought after V2 they would just die off and that would be the end of it. But that has not happened and the church just does not want to deal with the entire group of Conservative and Trad catholics and feel they have a better shot of bringing back the Protestants and the Schismatic Orthodox and just tell the Trads to take a hike. So there is bitterness and maybe that is the reason for a Pope Pius XIII.

Perhaps they DO “feel” that way - but they HAVE BEEN wrong in their assessment of the validity and integrity of the Liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments; they HAVE been wrong in believing that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; and they ARE wrong in believing that the Church has no interest in their returning to Her.

I am a revert from schism. So are Pete Vere, JCL, Shawn McElhinney, Bill Grossklas, Tony & Marion Bordignon, Kevin Campbell, Janice Cummings, Mark Downie, Jamie Frater, Phil Gough, Stephen Hand, Tony & Claire Pekolj, Thomas Sparks, Gerard Wilson, Stephen Nosco and ex sedevacantists: Mac de Nie, Robert Hess, Jim Riihl, and SSPX priests: Frs Bachmann, Gary Campbell, John Rizzo, Marshall Roberts, Benedict Van Der Putten, Abbé Emmanuel Berger, plus Bishop Licinio Rangel and his 26 priests and 26, 000 laypersons from Campos. (And these are only some of the ones that I know of!)

 

[FrRobSST]

big_guy144:

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord. No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

I am sorry, but your facts are quite incorrect. Constantine wasn’t even baptized until his deathbed. He was not a bishop, a presbyter (priest), or deacon. He was a catechumen until his deathbed. He was never the Bishop of Rome.

I also believe you strongly misunderstand the meaning of the term Vicar. Vicar means ‘representative’. For example, when a bishop assigns a priest to serve as a manager for a group of parishes, he is called a Vicar Forane in the Roman Church. When he assigns a priest or assisting bishop to be his chief assistant, he is a Vicar General. Vicar means representative of (fill in blank). In the case of a VG or VF, it’s Representative of the Diocesan Bishop. In the case of the Roman Bishop, it’s Representative of the Christ.

Never trust Websters to properly define theological and ecclesiastical terms.

Rob+

 

[Exporter]

]
Our pope is not Peter’s successor

. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord. No man can be Christ’s substitute, or Anti-Christ (Anti means in place of in Webster’s 1828 dictionary), or Vicar.

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1COR 3:11.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16:16-18
“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

---

Big Guy , you poor fellow you say “OUR POPE”, yet you speak as a PROTESTANT. I do not consider JP II to be a Pope of Protestants. In fact his title includes the Holy Roman Catholic Chrch not any Protestant Church.

I am sorry to tell you this oft told bit of Scripture and Historical Tradition relating that St. Peter ( Simon Peter) WAS the rock opon which Jesus’ Church was built. The story has been told so many times I will not tell all of it here.

Look to the writings of Ignatias to read about Peter as the Pope.

By the way, in Jesus’ time Greek was the common language around the Medditerrainian, Jesus was speaking Aramaic to Simon Peter. When you read a Bible now you are reading translations of translations. LATER, Latin became the predominant language in the Med. area. Did you know that Jesus had given Simon bar Jonah the Aramaic name of Cephas ( which means Rock) the first time Jesus met him. To givve a new name in Jewish culture meant the person was taking on a new job. Cephas translated into Greek became Petros (rock) and in English it is Peter.
Of couirse Peter was not called the Pope. Pope is SLANG for the Latin word that means Father. Latin became the predominate langusge about the year 275. So don’t infer Peter was not the Pope, the name had not been coined at Peter’s time.

 

[Exporter]

big_guy144:

Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”

---

He saw his wife’s mother…it didn’t say how old Peter was. Could it be that the mother-in-law was very old and Peter’s wife had died? Of course.

 

[gardenswithkids]

big_guy144:

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD.

1- St. Peter died June 29, 67
2- St. Linus, elected 67, died sept 23, 76
3- St. Cletus, elected 76, died a martyr in 88
4- St. Clement, elected 99, martyred in 97
5- St.Evaristus, elected in 97 diet in 105
6- St. Alexander I, elected 105, died in 115
7- St. Sixtus I, elected 115 died 125
8- St. Telesphorus, elected 125, martyred in 136
9- St. Hyginus, elected 136, martyred 140
10- St. Pius I, elected 140, martyred 155
11- St. Ancetu, elected 155, martyred 166
12- St.Soter, elected 166, martyred 175
13- St. Eleutherrius, elected 175, martyred 189
14- St. Victor, elected 189, martyred 199
15- St. Zephyrinus, elected 199, martyred 217
16- St. Calixtus, elected 217, martyred 222
17- St. Urban I, elected 222, martyred 230
18- St. Pontian, elected 230, died 235
19- St. Anterus, elected 236, martyred in 236
The list goes on. In 312 the Pope was St. Miltiades who was elected on July 2, 311 and died on January 2, 314.
Our most recent Pope John Paul II, was the 264 th pope, and we await the election of number 265.

big_guy144:

Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, he is the King, he is the Lord.

Yes, we agree on this! Jesus is the King of kings, the Lord of lords! The foundation on which our faith is built!

Now I invite you, big guy 144, to study the Church which Jesus left for you. The Catholic Church is the barque of Peter from which Jesus speaks.

 

[FrRobSST]

Now I invite you, big guy 144, to study the Church which Jesus left for you. The Catholic Church is the barque of Peter from which Jesus speaks.

Barque… ur… I’d prefer a sloop

Rob+

 

[nike248]

big_guy144:

Also, a small note to clear up that Jesus was refering to himself, the Christ as the rock upon which the church would be built…

“He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith uno him, We have found the** Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ**. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpreted, A stone.” John 1:41-42

“…and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corithians 10:4

It’s kind of funny how you Protestants all claim to be Bible Christians and you twist the Word of God around. You jump from John all the way to Corinthians and you don’t even include the full quote from Corinthians. What a joke!

 

[nike248]

big_guy144:

Wasn’t Peter married? The Bible says he was.

Matthew 8:14 says, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”

Oh my gosh! It only took one person to fully discredit the Catholic Church and its 2000 years of existence! Praise be to God!

 

[Ignatius]

Our pope is not Peter’s successor. Peter was not even the rock that the Church was built upon. Constantine was the first pope in 312 AD.

This contention always gives me a chuckle. A little research (and it really takes so very little), will reveal that Constantine supported the Arian heretics, not the Catholic Church. He and his sons even attempted depose the Pope and Catholic Bishops and set up his own Arian puppet bishops in their place. In fact, St. Athanasias was one of the Bishops exiled by him and he. I’m surprised that people don’t know that. You are terribly misinformed and need to do your own scholarship instead of swallowing all of the false propositions that your are fed.

Hope this helps.

Yours in Christ.